
^ Class r fo ^v5 



Book 



i 



i£. 



¥ 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. H. S. GEYER, OF MISSOURI, 



ON THE 



KANSAS CONTROVERSY. 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 7-8, 1856^. 



WASHINGTON: 

^J^lINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

IS66. 



r^s 



i '.i 



r 



ri 

Y 



KANSAS CONTROVERSY. 



The Senate, as in Committer of the Whole, having under 
consideration the bill to authorize the people of the Terri- 
tory of Kansas to form a constitution and State government, 
preparatory to their admission into tiie Union, when they 
have the requisite population — 

Mr. GEYER said : Mr. President, my posi- 
tion, as the sole representative of the people of 
Missouri in this Ciiannber, will not permit me to 
decline a participation in a debate which has no 
other attractions for me. I engage in it, there- 
fore, as a work of necessity rather than one of 
taste and inclination. The circumstances under 
which it was inaugurated indicate the purpose to 
make political capital out of the disturbances in 
Kansas, with a view to the pending elections, 
State and Federal. In sucha confroversy I could 
have no disposition to engage here in the Senate; 
but the debate lias embraced questions of endur- 
ing interest, of the legislative history and power 
of Congress in respect to the Territories, the con- 
stitutional and political relations of the Slates 
and people of this Union towards each other, and 
their reciprocal obligations and duties, as well as 
of the events in Kansas since the organization of 
the government in that Territory. Upon some 
of these topics I intend to addn^ss the Senate, 
and especially on those which more immediately 
concern the people of Missouri. 

All agree that there have been disturbances in 
Kansas, but we disagree as to their origin, nature, 
and extent. The honorable Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Hale] opened this discussion 
by a bold denunciation of the PresidiMit of the 
United States as the instigator of mob violence 
in Kansas. This was followed by tlie S(niator 
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wii.sov,] the Senator 
from Illinois, [Mr. Tkumihili.,] and the Senator 
from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan,] in an attempt to throw 
on tlie people of Western Missouri the entire 
responsibility for these disturbances. 

The subject having been refi^rred to the Com- 
mittee on Territories, we have two reports. That 
of the minority is founded on theory, differing 
from all others, and aifirms that the acts of all 
parties engaged in the disturbances were justifi- 



able under the temptations presented by the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska act; or, in other words, that the re- 
sponsibility for all the acts of violence which have 
been committed or threatened rests with the Con- 
gress which passed that act. On the other hand, 
the majority report places the responsibility where 
I am disposed to place it — upon those who oper- 
ate at a safe distance, and expose themselves to 
none of the dangers of the strife which they 
foment and promote. 

Mr. President, the minority report undertakes 
to apologize for my constituents, as well as for 
those who engaged in the contest at the instiga- 
tion or under the patronage of associations in the 
other States, but does it on an assumption that I 
cannotadmit, and I feel a stronger desu*e to vindi- 
cate them against that apology than all else which 
has been said in this Chamber. I cannot agree 
that they have yielded to a temptation, which it 
is said this law presented, and the encouragement 
it gave to acts of violence and disorder; and that 
they have been unable to restrain themselves 
when unprovoked by assaults from another quar- 
ter; nor will I consent to accept for them a defense 
intended for their assailants, and which for that 
purpose only, regards the acts of both parties as 
justifiable, if not praiseworthy. 

In order to sustain the conclusions of the mi- 
nority report, its author goes back a great dis- 
tance, and brings under review " the action of 
Congress in relation to all those thirteen Terri- 
tories" which are now States of the Union, and 
affirms that " it was conducted on a uniform prin- 
ciple to settle by a clear provision the law in rela- 
tion to the subject of slavery, by which it was 
expressly prohibited or allowed to remain, not 
l(!aving it in any one of those cases open to con- 
troversy — that this was done under a power too 
clear to be doubted, and resulted in securing peace 
and prosperity — that by the act of the (!lh of 
March, 1820, a contract was made that Missouri 
should be admitte-d without prohibition, and 
slavery/orct'fr abolished in the restof the territory 
ceded by France, north and west of that State — 
that under this arrangement Missouri ivas admitted 



ns a sliivpliolding Statn, Arkansas organizfd as a 
T- i-ritoi y.and slavery allowed tlierein, and aficr- 
vards adniiUed as a slavelidldinj; Slate. Tliat in 
18 JO a second contract was made, the slaveholding 
Slates ai^'reeing that the organization of Now 
Mexico and Ufah as Territories without pndnbi- 
ti.m should, together with the existing laws, settle 
/(;rcrertl.c whole suhject— that both the contracts, 
called compromises, were broken and disregarded 
by the act of 1H54— that this measure is a novel 
experiment, as well as a breach of faith, i>rocIaim- 
iiig an cp<!i course for a race of rivalship, jjro- 
Vildng aiul encouraging a struggle for political 
supremni-.y, the necessary consecjuence of which 
was strifr in the Territory organr^ed, and in that 
struggle it was justifiable, and even commendable, 
for al] per.-ioiis' to engage individually, or by or- 
ganized associations." These propositions I 
shall take leave to controvert. 

The first attempt, under the Constitution, to 
settle, by a clear provision, the law on the sub- 
ject of slavery in a Territory, was in 18J9, in the 
case of Arkansas during the first agitation of the 
Missouri cjuestion. The first enactment of Con- 
■rress prohibiiingslavery anywhere wasnot in any 
licl for the organization of a territorial government, 
but in the act of March (j, 18-iO, authorizing the 
people of Missouri to form a Slate government. 

All the territory northwest of the Ohio was 
embraced by the ordinance of 1787, passed by the 
(Congress of the Confederation, it contains two 
distinct parts: the first is an organic law for the 
temporary government of llic ivliolc district. The 
second consists of articles of compact between the 
original Stutes ixniihe people' and Suites, in the said 
Territory, to provide, among other things, "for 
the establishment of States and permanent gov- 
ernment therein, and for their admission to a share 
in the Federal councils on an equal footing with 
the original States." This compact, the sixth 
article of which prohibits slavery in the Territory, 
it was declared should " remain forever unalter- 
a'ule unless by < onimon consent." Though the 
ordinance was passed without constitutional au- 
thority, it was regarded as a compact by Congress 
in their subsequent legislation under the Consti- 
tution. The obligation of the compact being recog- 
nizi.'d, the organization of Territories within the 
tract of country embraced by the ordinance was 
made to conform to it; that is to say, the pro- 
hibition, whicli was declared to be perpetual, was 
not repealed. 

There v.'k.s no provision settling the law on the 
subject of slavery in any of the acts authorizing 
any of the territorial goviMuments soutli of the 
Ohio, and east of llie Mississippi. Where the 
governmejit was to be similar, or conform to the 
ordinance of 17a7, the sixth article of the com- 
pact was excepted. The acts for the organization 
of temporary governments west of the Missis- 
sippi, jirior lo the year 183(5, contain no provision, 
directly or indirectly, concerning slavery. Inft'l 
these Te-rviiories east and west of the Mississippi 
there was no provision expressly prohibiting, or 
allowing slavery. All left it to' be regulated by 
tin; local law, that is, non-intervention, the prin- 
ci}ilc of ihe tvunsas-Nebraska act, and of the com- 
inoiai&c ol 1850. 



It appears, then, that in seven of the thirteen 
Territorie.s named in the minority report, there 
was no provision in the organic laws settling the 
(pieslion of slavery, to which must ije added New 
Mexico and Utah, making nine out of eighteen, 
organiz(;d before the passage' of the Kansas-Ne- 
l)raska act, without prohil>iiion or exjiress recog- 
nition of slavery. It should be reme-mljered also, 
that the whole of the other nine were covered 
eitherby the compact of 1787, or the so-called com- 
promise of 18:20, recognized as such by the south- 
ern Stales, until they were obliged to surrender 
all hope that it would be observed, convinced by 
successive repudiations that it never had been 
regarded by the other parlies as obligatory on 
them. It is worthy of remark, also, that Con- 
gress did not undertake, nor did the southern 
Slates ever ask them, to establish, or even to 
recognize, slavery by law anywhere. 

Bui it is enough that, in all the Territories 
where slavery actually existed to any consider- 
alile or general extent, and in at least two where it 
did not in fact exist — making nine out of eighteen 
— there was no interference with the subject by 
Congress. So that the act of 1854 is not " a novel 
experiment." 

The legislation of Congress in relation to the 
Territories is claimed in the minority report to 
" furnish a practical cotemporaneous construc- 
tion" of the Constitution, establishing the power 
of Congress in the Territories on the sulyect of 
slavery to be absolute and unlimited, and that, 
beyond the possibility of doubt or apology for 
skepticism. This pn.sition the honorable Senator 
from Vermont [Mr. Collamer] has attempted to 
reinforci' in his speech, and, as I entertain a very 
different opinion, 1 propose to examine the pre- 
cedents upon which he relies. 

The ordiiiant^e of 1787 embraced all the terri- 
tory norihwest of the Ohio; and, although it was 
recognized by Congress aficr the adoption of the 
Constitution in the acts organizing territorial 
governments in that district of country, it was not 
reiinacled. The new government was bound by 
all the contracts of the Confederalion. That obli- 
gation, in respect to the ordinance of 1787, w\i3 
recognized b)' Congress in the acts referred to, 
which assented to the organic law already in force, 
but did not attemjit to reenact or repudiate any 
"article of the com|)ael between thr- original Slates 
and the peo])le and Stales in the Territory." 
These acts of Congress were passed in the execu- 
tion of a contract of recognized obligation, not 
under an independent power of legislation. And 
here I take occasion to remark, that what oc- 
curred in respect to the recognition of llie com- 
pact of 1787 occurred also in respect to the sup- 
posed compromises at a later period. It appears 
that southi-rn representatives, when ihey suppose 
I that they have made a contract, do not seek for 
1 excuses to eseajie from its obligation, (although 
lit be not legal,) while it is observed by other 
' parties. Although the original com)v\ci was with- 
out constitutional authority, they did not scruti- 
nize the powers of the Confederation in order to 
contest the legal validity of the .sixth article, or 
any other of the compact or organic law con- 
tained in the ordinance-, it was enough for them 



d 



to know that a compact was intended, and they 
recognized the moral obligation to observe it. So, 
for thirty years after the Missouri compromise 
so-called, and until they lost all hope of its recog- 
nition or observance by the other parties, they 
adhered to it with unwavering fidelity. 

1 passed over the act of 2d August, 1789, be- 
cause, although the honorable Senator from New 
Hampshire claimed it to be a reenactment of the 
ordinance of 1787, the proposition was abund- 
antly refuted by the honorable Senator from 
Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] whose interpretation of 
the act I understood to be assented to by the hon- 
orable Senator from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan;] and 
that is, to adapt the ordinance to the present 
Constitution by transferring to the executive 
department of the new government the power of 
appointing and removing oiRcers vested by the or- 
dinance of the Congress of the Confederation, and 
to provide for the case of vacancies in the office 
of Governor. This is all that was intended or 
accomplished by the act. 

The honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. 
Collamer] endeavors to sustain his jiroposition, 
that the disputed power over slavery in the Ter- 
ritories is establishiid by the cotemporaneous 
construction of the Constitution, by referring to 
the act of 1798, providing for the government of 
Mississippi Territory, the first instituting a ter- 
ritorial government independentof any compact, 
and in territory over which the United States 
exercised jurisdiction, though Georgia claimed 
adversely. That act did not purport to prohibit 
or regulate slavery in the Territory, but left it to 
the local law by excluding the sixth article of the 
ordinance of 1787. The assi'rtion of a general 
power over the subject is inferred by the Senator 
from a clause prohibiting the introduction of 
slaves from any place "without the United States. " 
Was not the honorable Senator aware that this 
clause depends on the power to regulate com- 
merce, to prohibit the foreign slave trade, except 
in States cxistiiif^ at the adoption of tlie Constitu- 
tion, prior to 1808, and everywhere in the United 
States afterwards ? 

The actof 2(Jlh March, 1804, providing for the 
government of the Territory of Orleans, (part of 
Louisiana,) was referred to by the Senator for 
the same purpose. It contains thesAme provision, 
enacted under the same power, and proliibils also 
the introduction of slaves which had been imported 
into the United States against law, after the 1st 
May, 1798, or by any person other than a citizen 
of the United States, bona fide emigi-ants, and 
settlers. Of this act it is eniaigh to say, that it 
•was not passed under any claim of powi'r to pro- 
hibit or establish slavery in a Territory, but is 
to be referred to the power before-mentioned. 
The honorable Senator omitted, however, to state 
that the act was repealed in less than a year by 
the act of 3d March, 1805, and therefore it is not 
available as a precedent, still less does it afford 
evidence of the cotemporaneous construction 
claimed. 

There was an attempt to abolish slavery in 
Arkansas in 1819, in direct opposition to the ; 
principle which the honorable Senator from Ver- [ 
inont says was uniform, that is, " where slavery 



was actually existing to any considerable or 
general extent," as in Arkansas, " to suffer it to 
remain. " In that case there was a well-sustained 
effort on the part of the northern Representatives 
to impose a prohibition, and finally there was a 
tie vote — eighty-eight to eighty-eight. Arkansas 
was saved by the casting vote of tlie Speaker. A 
majority of all the Representatives of every non- 
slaveholding State, with perhaps one exception, 
voted in favor of the prohibition.* This, accord- 
ing to the minority report, was a violation of prin- 
ciple by every State, a majority of whose Repre- 
sentatives voted to prohibit slavm-y in Arkansas; 
and the decision against the prohibition must be 
regarded as a construction of the Constitution 
against the power claimed. 
''The eighth section of the act of 1820, called 
the Missouri compromise, was not passed in the 
execution of any power to organize territorial 
governments. It is either a compact, or an ordi- 
nary provision of law; if the former, it is not a 
precedent for^any act prohibiting slavery in the 
Territories under the Constitution, independent 
of a compact. As an ordinary act of Congress, it 
depends for its effect wholly on the Constitution. 
As a compact it may not be legally obligatory, 
but it imposes a moral obligation on the parlies 
independent of the law. The act in question is 
a precedent only as an ordinary act of legislation, 
passed, as the Senator from Vermont says, by 
the southern States, and being repealed, or, more 
properly, declared " inoperative and void" by a 
constitutional act of Congress, it ceases to be a 
precedent of any authority. 

The legislation of Congress respecting slavery 
in the Territories, embraced by the eighth section 
of the act of 1820, is to be referred to the obliga- 
tion of the su))posed compact, and not to the 
assertion of a constitutional power independent 
of any compact. The prohibition of slavery 
north of 3(P 30' in Texas was by compact 
between that Slate and the United Stales. Its 
validily de]ien(ls upon the power of Texas, and 
not upon any iudependentact of Congress, under 
the Constitution. On the other hand, the acts 
for the organization of New Mexico and Utah 
are precedents against the exercise of the power 
claimed. 

The Senator from Iowa relies upon the acts of 
Congress enabling the people of the respective 
Slates of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to form 
constitutions; providing that they should not be 
repugnant to the ordinance of 1787, as examples 
of the legislative construction of the Constitution, 
in favor of the power claimed over the Territo- 
ries; but it is obvious that the clause in question 
was intended only to recognize the obligation of 
the compact, and not the exertion of an inde- 
pendent power under the Constitution, otherwise 
it nTust be regarded as nothing less than an 
attem[)t to dictate a constitution, the assertion of 
a i)ower which no Senator here will attempt to 
maintain. 

Then; is, however, a precedent in which t!ie 
authority to dictate the provisions of a Stale con- 
stitution was asserted by Congress, independent 



See Appendi.v, No. 1. 



6 



of any compact, in the act of Fubruary, 1811, 
antlioi-izin;^ tlic people of Loviisiana to form a 
conslitiiiion and State Efovernmeiit, which pro- 
vided tliat " the constitution shall contain the 
fundamental principles of civil and relijjious 
liberty, to secure the trial by jtiry, the writ of 
habeas corpus, &c. Tliat tlie laws should be 
promuljjated and the records kept; judicial and 
legislative preceedings conducted in the language 
in which such proceedings, &c., in the United 
Stales are conducted and published." This ex- 
ample of c<>ni,'ressional li^gislation would certainly 
not be regarded at this day as an authoritative 
exposition of the Constitution. 

Pending the Missouri question, in 1819 and 
1820, the Legislatures of the non-slaveholding 
Slatis, almost without exception, resolved that 
Congress possessed the constitutional power; and 
liie Representatives of all of them almost unani- 
mously voted to impose upon Missouri, as a con- 
dition to the formation of a State government, 
that slavery should be forever prohibited by the 
constitution. No such power is claimed now; 
it is referred to only to test the value of legislative 
precedent in settling a question of legislative 
power. 

I admit that the cotcmpoi-aneous exposition 
of the Constitutions, as well as laws, is of the 
higliest authority. The received interpretation 
of the several clauses of the Constitution to wliicli 
the honoraiile Senator from Vermont referred, 
however, is founded on cotemporaneous hislcjry, 
not legislative precedents, or examples of legis- 
l^xive conslructmn. An act of Congress, where 
the question of its constitutionality is fairly pre- 
sented, fully considered, and directly decided, is 
doubtless entitled to high consideration as a pre- 
c<'d"'iit; but it is by no means of conclusive au- 
thority. 

Having now shown that the constitutional 
power asserted in the minority report is not main- 
tained by cotemf)oraneous construction, I pro- 
po.se to extend the inquiry still further. The 
honorable Senator from Vi'rmont,in his nport — 
liie constitutional question being din^etly in the 
way — makes a very summary disposition of it. 
Referring to the alleged practice of Congress, in 
.settling the law on the subject of slavery in the 
Territories by a clear provision prohibiting or tol- 
erating it at discretion, the report informs us that 

''This was done by Coneiess in tho exercise of the same 
poMiir wiiieh iiiokleil [[u: I'onn of their orniiiiic laws, and 
oiipoiiited Ihinr execuiivL- and jurtioinry, and somcliini^s 
liicir Ipsisjniivi- ofliciTs. It was ihe jjower provided in the 
(.■iia-!ituti<tii, in these words : 

'' • Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all 
n-'edinl Idles and reanlaiions respeeiing the lerrilory or 
oihir piiiperfy l)eloiii;ln{> to the United States.' 

"Seiilinir the sulijeet of slavery while the country re- 
mained a Territory, was no hii'lier exercise of power in 
CiriLMTss than the rejniation of the fnnetions of tlie^erri- 
tori;:l cove rtiinent, and actually appointiii!; its prineipal 
fiinelionail.'s. 'i'jiis praeliee eonueetieed with this national 
r.overiinient, and was rnntinued, with uninteniipted iini- 
torniily, tor more than sixty years. This praeiical eotein- 
p 'raneiius eon.~lruelion of the eoiistitutioiml jioircr of this 
Guvernnient is too clear to leave roonj for doubt, or oppor- 
tunity lor steeplicisni." 

Mr. President, 1 have had occasion to examine 
the subject, and l)eliive I have traced to tlnir 
origin the errors into which many have fallen in 



respect to the source and extent of the power of 
Congress over the Territories. I have recently 
fully discussed the question at large in another, 
and, perhaj)s,a more appropriate forum. On the 
present occasion I shall content myself with pre- 
senting rather the heads of an argument, or state- 
ment of propositions, than an elaboration of the 
points. 

It is not my purpose to deny the constitu.tional 
power of Congress to institute temporary gov- 
ernments in the Te'rritories, establishing what 
the Senator froiu Vermont appropriately terms 
inunicipal corporations; and that is the whole 
extent of ])ower exercised in practice under the 
Constitution prior to 1820. But I cannot agree 
that the power of settling the law on the subject 
of slavery in the Territories is vested in Con- 
gress. 

The power of Congress to organize municipal 
govermnents for the Territories, has been claimed, 

First. Under the power to dispose of, and make 
all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
territory and other property of the United Slates. 

Second. As resulting from the power to ac- 
quire territory by treaty or conquest. 

Tliird. As resulting from the fact that the ter- 
ritory is within the United States, and not within 
any State. 

Fourth. IJiuh'r the power, after the first of Jan- 
uary, 1808, to prohibit the migration or importa- 
tion of such pirsons as any State then existing 
may think pro[)er to admit. 

Fifth. Under the power to admit new States 
into the Union. 

From whatever source the power is derived, it 
is a power to create a corporation or temporary 
government only, and does not carry with it su- 
preme, univ(!rsal, and unlimited power over the 
persons or property of the inhabitants, nor author- 
ize the abolition of slavery, or interference in 
any form with the laws of property. 1 can find 
authority, I think, for the establishment of a mu- 
nicipal 2:overiiment, but none in the Constitution 
of the United States giving power over persons 
or prope^rty , which does not extend to persons and 
property within the Stales as well as Territories. 

The clause of the Constitution, article one, sec- 
tion nine, in respect to the migration and impor- 
tation of persons from abroad, was relied on as the 
source of the powc^r assert(!d in the Missouri con- 
troversy. It was claimed that Congress possessed 
the power to prohibit slavery in that State, as 
necessiu-y to the execution of the power to pro- 
hibit th(; migration and imporlation of slavi^s; but 
after the debate on that memorable occasion, I 
know of no man who has ever looked to that 
clause as the source of the power to prohibit 
slavi;ry in the Territories or elsewhere. There 
have been some cases in which the subject lias 
been mentioned in the Supreme Court of the 
United States, but the question of )iower never 
decided. The first is the case of McCullough vk, 
Maryland,* decided in 181!), in whicli the argu- 
ment is to deduce a power to incorporate a Bank 
of the United States, under the general clause 
giving to Congress }iower to pass all laws neces- 



4 Whcaton, 424. 



sary and proper to carry into effect the powers 
granted by the Constitution; and in order to ilUis- 
Irate the argument, the Chief Justice, delivering 
the opinion of tlic court, said: 

'■'The power to make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the territory or other property helongiiig to the 
United folates,' is not more comprehensive than the power 
' to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
carrying into execution the powers of Government.' Yet 
all admit the constitutionality of a territorial government, 
wliiclt is a corporation." 

This is the first intimation of the recognition 
of that power even to create a corporation. In 
the case of the American Insurance Company vs. 
Canter, decided in 1826, Chief Justice Marshall 
delivered the opinion of the court; and he there 
expresses some doubi as to the source of the 
power to create even a territorial government. 
He says: 

" Until it becomes a State, Florida continues to be a Ter- 
ritory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause 
(art. 4, sec. 3.) which empowers Congress to make all need- 
ftil rules and regulations respecting the territory or other 
property belonging to the United States. 

" Perhaps the power of governing a Territory may result 
necessarily t'rom the fact, that it is not within the jurisdic- 
tion of a particular State, and is within the power and ju- 
risdiction of the United vStates. 

" The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence 
of the riglit to acquire territory 

" Whicliever be the source from whence the power is 
derived, the possession of it is unquestionable." 

Afterwards the construction of the clause con- 
ferring upon Congress the power to dispose of 
and make all needful rules and regulations re- 
specting the territory or other property of the 
United States, was directly before the Supreme 
Court in the case of the United States vs. Gratiot, 
decided in 1840. Mr. Justice Thompson, deliv- 
ering the opinion of the court, said: 

" The term territory, as here used, is merely descriptive 
of one kind of property, and is equivalent to the word 
' lands ;' and Congress ha.s the .same power over it as it has 
over any other projjerty belonging to the United States; and 
this power is vesleil in Congress without limitation, and has 
been considered the foundation on which the territorial gov- 
ernments rest." 

That is, the subject of the power is property, 
and the property only of the United States, not 
that of inhabitants of States or Territories. 

The minority report assumes that, under the 
power to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
regulations respecting the territory or other prop- 
erty belonging to the United States, Congress may 
not only organize municipal governments, but 
po.ssess a power absolute, universal, and unlim- 
ited, over the local laws, the persons and property 
of the inhabitants within any Territory within 
the United States, and not within any State of 
the Union. This, in my opinion, is a great error, 
which, I think, may be traced to the misappre- 
hension, by commentators and others, of the opin- 
ions of tin; Supreme Court which I have quoted. 

In the commentaries on the Constitution by tlie 
late Mr. Justice Story, the power to govern is said 
to result from the power to acquire territory, and 
that no one ever doubted the authority of Con- 
gress to erect territorial governments within the 
territory of the United States, under the general 
language of the clause giving power to make 
needful rules and regulations respecting the ter- 
ritory or other property belonging to the United 



States; that this power is clearly exclusive and 
universal, and the legislation of Congress is sub- 
ject to no control, but is absolute and vtnlimited 
except so far as it is affected by stipulations in the 
cessions or the ordinance of 1787, under which 
any part of it was settled; that the final result 
of the vote which authorized the erection of the 
State of Missouri seems to establish the rightful 
authority of Congress, although not then apnlied, 
to impose a restriction of slavery as a conaition 
of admission. 

Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, seems 
to have adopted the views of Justice Story. He 
says: 

" With respect to the vast territories belonging to the 
United States, Congress liave assumed to exercise over them 
supreme powers of sovereignty." " Exclusive and unluii- 
ited power of legislation is given to Congress by the Con- 
stitution, and sanctioned by judicial decisions." 

Now, it has been shown that, in no act of Con- 
gress passed under the Constitution prior to 1820, 
did Congress assume supreme powers of sover- 
eignty. Municipal corporations were established 
for the government of the Territories, and to thia 
extent only was the power of Congress recog- 
nized by judicial decisions. There is no adjudged 
case affirming the jjower to be exclusive and un- 
limited. 

The commentator, after quoting and remarking 
upon the clause conferring legislative power over 
the District of Columbia, proceeds: 

" The general sovereignty existing in tlie Government of 
the United States, over its Territories, is founded on the 
Constitution, wliieli declared that Congress ' i>hould have 
power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula- 
tions respecting the territories or other property belonging 
to the United States.' " 

This is a misquotation of the Constitution; the 
word territory, which has been interpreted by the 
Supreme Court to mean land, gives place to ter- 
ritories; a term applied after the adoption of the 
Constitution, and not before, to the district of 
country erected into municipal governm(?nts or 
corporations. But Chancellor Kent, appreciating 
the nature of the power he supposed to have 
been assumed, remarks: 

" l^pon the doctrine taught by the act of Congress, and 
even by the judicial decis:on.s of the Siiprcme (jourt, the 
colonists would be in a state of most complete subordina- 
tion, and as dependent upon tlie will of Congress as the 
people' of this country would have been upon tlie King and 
Parliament of (ireat Hritain, if they could have sustained 
their cliiiin to hiiul us in all cases whatsoever. Such a state 
of absnUite sovereignty on the one hand, and of absolute 
dci)eri(l('ncc on the other, is not congenial with the free and 
independent sjiirit of our native institutions; and the estab- 
lishment of distant territorial governments, ruled aecordmg 
to will and pii'asure, would have a very natural tendency, 
as all proc(msular governments have had, to abuse and op- 
pression." 

Mr. President, is this not a fearful power to be 
deduced by complication from a power to insti- 
tute a municipal government, itself im])!ied as 
incident to some power granted by the Constitu- 
tion.' It is nothing less than an asserticm of a 
power opposed to the fundamental principles of 
free government, to establish an absolute domin- 
ion over the persons aiul property of all the in- 
habitants of the Territories of the United States. 

I think I find, in the proceedings of tlie con- 
vention, in the articles of confederation, and in 
the ordinance of 1787, compared witli the Consti- 



8 



tution of the United States, conclusive evidence 
thai the convention did not contemplate the estab- 
lishment of colonies. The ordinance of 1787 
liad covered tiie whole of the territory then sup- 
posed to belon" to the United States, and over 
which they hati jurisdiction. I see that the Sen- 
ator from Connecticut [Mr. Toucey] signifies his 
dissent to the i^roposition. 

Mr. TOUCEY. I do. 

Mr. GEYER. I know there was a contro- 
versy about territory south of the Ohio. I said 
" then supposed to belong to the United States;" 
and at the time of the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion the ordinance did cover all territory over 
whicli Congress had tlie admitted jurisdiction. 

In the convention which formed the Constitu- 
tion, Mr. Madison made propositions to confer 
upon Congress several distinct powers, and among 
others, " to dispose of the unappropriated lands 
of tlie United States: to institute temporary gov- 
ernments for new States arising therein;" and 
"to exercise exclusive legislative authority at 
the seat of the General Government, and over 

a district around the same not exceeding 

square miles." Two of these projiositions were 
found incorporated in the Constitution in other 
language, but in apt words to express the inten- 
tion of the convention. The power to establish 
temporary governments for States or Territories 
is not found in the Constitution. Certainly there 
is no such power expressly granted; and that 
omission is of itself conclusive, in my judgment, 
against the power now claimed. That conven- 
vention, when about to confer powers of exclu- 
sive legislation over persons or property, found 
apt words in which to express their intent. 

The mover of the propositions certainly under- 
stood them to be distinct. It never occurred to 
him that a power to dispose of unappropriated lands 
comprehended a power to institute temporary 
governments, and still less general and exclusive 
legislative authority; nor, I apprehend, did the 
convention, by substituting " territory or other 
property" in lieu of "unappropriated lands" 
as the subject of tlie power granted, intend to 
include the other powers proposed. 

If it had been designed to confer a power to 
exercise general and exclusive legislation ov^r the 
inhabitants in the Territories in all cases whittso- 
ever, it would have been the easiest thing imagin- 
able to have expressed that intention by the inser- 
tion of a few words in the clause which provides 
that Congress shall have power 

"To exercise exclusive jurisdiction, in all cases whatso- 
ever, over such district, (not cxfcciliiig ten miles sq\iare,) 
as may, liy cession of pailicular .SiaK's and tlic acec|itanco 
of Congress, become the seat of ti'ovcrnnient of the I'niled 
Slates; and to exercise like aulliority over all places pur- 
chased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in 
which the same shall be, for tlieerection of forts, maga- 
zines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.'" 

Why not insert also " to exercise like author- 
ity over the territory belonging to the United 
Stales, or which may hereafter be acquired," if 
so large a jiowor was intended to be granted ? It 
will be observed that the original proposition was 
limited to the seat of government; the latter part 
of the clause, embracing sites of forts, arsenals, 



&c., was added by the convention; and while the 
subject of legislation over territory within the 
exclusive jurisdiction of tlie United States was 
before them, if they had intended to confer the 
disputed power, apt words to accomplished it 
would have been inserted. 

I agree that all needful rules and regulations 
may be made in reference to anything which is 
the subject of the power granted by the clause in 
question. Whatever Congress can regulate un- 
der that power, it may dispose of, and dispose of 
absolutebj ; and whatever Congress may dispose 
of, it may regulate; and it cannot regulate any- 
thing under that clause which it cannot dispose 
of absolutely. 

In Story's Commentaries it is said, truly, that 
"the power is not confined to 'territory,' but 
extends to other property belonging to the United 
Stales; so that it may apply to the regulation of 
other personal or njal property rightfully belong- 
ing to the United States." The learned com- 
mentator, however, afterwards says, that "the 
power of Congress over the public territory is 
clearly exclusive and universal; but the power to 
regulate other national " property is not neces- 
sarily exclusive unless " Congress liave acquired 
by cession exclusive jurisdiction: that is to say, 
the power in question attaches to territory 'as 
property;' but the regulation of other property 
belonging to the United States depends upon its 
being of a particular description, over which Con- 
gress acquires jurisdiction under another clause 
of the Constitution." 

But I submit that both the power and juris- 
diction of Cotigress over the subject of the grant 
under the clause in question, depends upon the 
ju'oprietary interest of the United States in it, 
whether it be territory or other property. There 
is no power to dispose of it, or regulate it, unless 
it is the property of the United States; and, if 
it is, Congress may dispose of, or regulate it, 
wherever situate; but the power and jurisdiction 
depart with the proprietary interest in territory, 
as well as in other property. 

All dilhculty in ascertaining the subject of tlic 
power under the clause respecting the territory, 
&c., will be solved by accepting the interpretation 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the 
United States vs. Gratiot; substituting the words 
" jniblic lands" for " territory," the clause will 
nntd — " Congress shall have power to dispose of 
and make all needful rules and regulations respect- 
ing the public lands or other property belonging to 
the United States." This would be sensible and 
consistent; but substituting for the word " terri- 
tory" something which is to indicate a local gov- 
ernment, calling it by the name of " province" or 
" corporation" 

Mr. CASS. Colony. 

Mr. GEYER. Yes, sir; insert the word " col- 
onies," and it will read: "Congress shall have 
power to dis]iose of and make all needful rules 
and regulations respecting the colonics or other 
property belonging to the United States." Let 
It stand in that form; and where is your power 
to dispose of the ]uiblic lands.' It cannot cover 
both; it either means land, the original primary 
sense of the word, or it means wliat the advocates 



of ihe power to prohibit slavery in the Territories 
contend for — colonics. 

Tliat tlie subject of the power represented by 
the word "territory" is theunappropriated lands, 
appears by the proviso, or latier branch of the 
clause in question, " that nothing in the Consti- 
tution shall be so construed as to prejudice any 
claims of the United Slates or any particular 
State." "This," said Mr. Madison, "is proper 
in itself, and was probably rendered absolutely 
necessary by jealousies and questions concern- 
ing the western territory, sufHeiently known to 
the public." The claims mentioned were un- 
doubtedly claims to unappropriated lands, and 
had no r(;lation to colonies, municipal govern- 
men.ts, or legislative power over the persons or 
property of individuals. 

The primary sense of the word "territory," 
undoubtedl}' is land, or a tract of countr)'; and it 
does not appear to have been employed in any 
Other sense before the adoption of the Consti- 
tution. In the resolutions by Congress, and the 
cessions by the States, " lands, ' ' "unappropriated 
lands," "territory," and "tract of country," 
arc terms employed to mean the same thing; 
sometimes two or three of them are used as con- 
vertible in the same instrument. The term "ter- 
ritory" was in no instance emploj-cd in the sense 
of colony, nor applied to designate a political or 
municipal division or government. What are now 
called Territories were organizi'd as "districts" 
before and for some time after the adoption of the 
Constitution, The governments northwest and 
south of the Ohio were for "districts." The term 
"territory" was gradually substituted for "dis- 
trict" in legislation, since the adoption of the 
Constitution. 

Whatever is meant by the word "territory," 
is the subject of the power. Congress may make 
rules and regulations concerning it, whether sit- 
uated in a State or elsewhere. The power at- 
taches to the territory wherever it is; and if it is a 
power to abolish slavery. Congress may exercise 
it in the States wherever the United States have 
property. It attaches only to " territory or other 
property belonging to the United States " at th.e 
time of the exertion of the power, and not to 
that which never did belong to them, or which has 
been disposed of. 

To organize a municipal Government or cor- 
poration for a district of country, to prohibit 
slavery, of interfere in any way with the law of 
property, is not to " make needfvil rules and reg- 
ulations respecting the territory or other pro})erty 
of the United Slates " within such district. Such 
a government extends over all the territory and 
all the inhabitants within the limits defined, 
whether the territory belongs to the United 
States or not; and is no more necessary or proper 
where the Government owns all, than where it 
owns none of the territory. Therefore, the 
power to institute such a government, and more 
especially, an unlimited power to legislate in all 
cases whatsoever over persons and property in 
the Territories, caimot bo deduced from the 
clause in question, which is no.thing more than 
a delegation of power to Congress as the agent of 
tlie UHited States, the proprietor of real estate 



and other properly, to dispose of that property 
and to make rules and regulations resj)ecting it, 
wheresoever situate; that is, for its protection, 
preservation, and management, while it remains 
the property of the United States, and no longer. 

Another source of tlie power of Congress over 
the Territories is supposed to be found in the 
power of acquisition. The power to govern is 
claimed as an incident to the power to acquire, 
to be exercised by Congress under the general 
authority " to make all laws which shall be ne- 
cessary and proper for carrying into execution 
the powers vested by the Constitution in the 
Government, or any department thereof. " Now 
it occvtrs to me that, when territory is acquired 
by treaty, the power to acquire quoad the subject 
of the treaty, is exhausted. The acquisition is 
complete when ratifications of tlie treaty are ex- 
changed. The power of acquisition is executed, 
and needs no legislation to carry it into execu- 
tion. 

But it is said, and may be conceded, that the 
United States acquire the exclusive sovereignty 
and political jurisdiction of territory acquired by 
treaty or conquest. Such, undoubtedly, is the 
effect of the acquisition under the law of nations. 
It does not follow, however, that Congress has 
unlimited power to legislate over the territory 
or the inhabitants acquired. Congress derives no- 
intra-territorial powers from the laws of nations. 
The sovereignty and jurisdiction are vested in the 
nation, not in Congress. I deny that Congress 
can acquire any power to legislate over the ac- 
quired territory, or the persons and property of 
the inhabitants, even by the express provisions 
of a treaty, or exercise any power not granted 
by the Constitution. 

It may be true tliat the people would be with- 
out any goverijment at all, unless Congress pos- 
sess the power to establish it; but it does not 
necessarily follow that the power to organize a 
government, and legislate for the territory and 
its inhabitants, results from the power of acqui- 
sition. It may be a casus omissus; but unless the 
power can be deduced from some other source, 
it docs not exist. The sovereign undoubtedly 
has power over the acquired territory, and might 
change or abrogate the laws; but, J repeat. Con- 
gress is not sovereign, and possesses no power 
not granted by the Constitution. 

The source of power under consideration fails, 
also, for the reason that the power, if it exists, 
may be exercised over any territory — as well that 
within the original limits of the United Slates, 
as that acquired by treaty or conquest. 

And again, according to all the rules of con- 
struction, a legislative power cannot be deduced 
by implication from a power which is itself im- 
jilied. The power of acquisition is not among 
the powers vested by the Constitution in the Gov- 
ernment or any department thereof: it is an inci- 
dent to the war or treaty power. 

I come now to the consideration of the power 
to admit new States as the source of the power 
to institute temporary governments for the people 
of the Territories. Lroni tliatstnirce tln^ majority 
n!porl derives the power in qmstion. The prop- 
osition is, that tJic organization of a temporary 



10 



governmpnt is necessary and proper, ns n means, 
to en;iljli' the people to mold tli'ir institutions, 
and org;iini/.e a State government under the author- 
ity of the Constitution, preparatory to its admis- 
sion into tiic Union. It is objected, however, tiiat 
the Constitution contemplates the admission of 
States in cases where it would not be necessary 
to institute a temporary ji^ovcrnment, and whore 
the power could not be exercised by Congress — 
that the power of admission comprehends all 
States, whether formed out of territory of the 
United States, or of one or more States of the 
Union, or even of a foreign State, as in the case 
of the annexation of Texas. Undoubtedly, in 
such case, it would not be necessary or proper, 
or even competent, for Congress to institute any 
goverimnent, whether the territory forming the 
new State was acquired by treaty or otherwise, 
after the adoption of the Constitution, and whether 
the United States are the proprietors of the whole 
or none of the "territory or property" included. 
Eut the institution of a temporary government is 
necessary and proper when the territory is within 
the limits of the United States, and not within a 
State. In that case there is no conflict of juris- 
diction to prevent the exercise of the |io\ver by 
Congress, which, if it exists at all, "results ne- 
cessarily from the fact, that the territory is not 
■within the jurisdiction of any particular State, 
and is witlun the power and jurisdiction of the 
United States." It docs not depend on any pro- 
prietary right of soil — there may be no " territory 
or other property belonging to the United States" 
within it to be disposed of or regulated; nor upon 
acquisition — it is immaterial to the question of 
powcrwhether the territory was or was not within 
the original limits of the United States; nor upon 
the number of the inhabitants — it may be more 
populous than any State in the Union, or contain 
few or no inhabitants. The power of Congress 
over it is the same. 

The institution of temporary governments for 
the people of a Territory is undoubtedly neces- 
sary and proper, though not always indisponsabh; 
as a nuans preparatory to tlie foruiation of a new 
State, and its admission into the Union;and where 
the Territory is within the exclusive jurisdiction 
of the Uniti'd States, the power of Congress to 
organize a government results of necessity as a 
means appropriate to the accomplishment of a 
constitutional end. 

The power to create a government or munici- 
pal corporation for the people of a Territory is 
nowhere conferred upon Congress by express 
grant; it is claimed only as an incident to some 
power, " vested by the Constitution in the Gov- 
ernment of the: United States, or a department 
thereof." Therelbre, from whatever source it is 
. derived, to which soever of the granted powers it 
is referred, it is limited to the necessity from 
which it arises, and is not a supreme, universal, 
and unlimited power over persons and property. 

The power over persons and propcirty under 
the Constitution of the United States nuist be, 
and is the same everywhere. It must be exer- 
cised in subordination to the principles of the 
Government. It does not depend on the nature 
of the property. To change inc law of property, 



— to prohibit or abolish slavery — to emancipate 
slaves, to confiscate any other kind ofjiroperty, or 
to divest vested rights, is a substantive, indepiMid- 
cnt j)ower. If it exists no treaty would aHbni 
protection to the inhabitants of acquired terri- 
tory. No legislative power can be extinguished, 
or conferred upon Congress, by treaty. 

If the power to create a municipal corporation, 
or to organize a government in any form for the 
people of the Territories, luid been expres.siy 
granted , it would not carry with it, as an incident, a 
power of legislation in all cases whatsoever over 
the peopli' and their property. Still less can such 
a power bi' deduced by implication from a power 
itsi.'lf implied. 

Now, sir, I demand to know, is a prohit)ition 
of slavery a rule or regulation, needful or other- 
wise, respecting the territory or other property 
belonging to the United States? or is it necessary 
to the execution of the power to dispose of land.' 
If "to dispose of territory" means to organize 
a municipal government for the people, the pro- 
hibition of slavery — an interference with the law 
of property or with vested rights — is not neces- 
sary to the execution of the power, nor is it in 
any way a means adajitcd to the end. The power, 
if not otherwise limited, cannot be exercised to 
the prejudice of the people of any portion of the 
Union. All have equal rights in the common ter- 
ritory to take and to hold there any property 
recognized by the Constitution and local laws. 

Here allow me to correct an error into which 
those northern gentlemen have falh.n who sup- 
pose that we of the slavcholding Siat'-s claim to 
carry our domestic institutions with us on remov- 
ing into the Territories. So far as my knowledge 
extends, we only insist that where, by the law 
of the Territory, our property will lie protected 
when there, we have a vested right to go there 
with that property — as much so as any citizen of 
any other State in the Union with any other prop- 
erty; and that it is an unconstitutional interfer- 
ence with that right so to legislate as to deprive 
us of the protection which the local law would 
atTord, and thereby elVrctually exclude us from 
the Territory. Slaves are jiroperty, recognized 
by the Constitution, and as well protected as 
any other. Emanci))ation by law divests vested 
rights; and, if you can prohibit slavery for the 
future, you 'may at any time emanci|)ate, iiy act 
of Congress, every slave in any or all the 'lerri- 
lories. The supreme, universal, and unlimited 
power which is equal to jirohibition is equal to 
abolition and emancijiaiion regardless of vested 
rights. 

Finally, the organization of a temporary 
goverinnent is necessary; but it is not neci^ssary 
to emancipate skives, to prohibit slavery, to con- 
fiscate property, or to change the local law of 
Jiroperty; nor is it necessary, or just, or even 
deft.'Dsible, to interfere with the right of any 
citizen of the United States to remove to the 
country open to others with any property recog- 
nized by the Constitution and laws of the United 
Stales and the local law of the Territory. 

Mr. President, I come now to another part of 
the subject — the"p(\'\ce and prosperity" which 
it is said have attended interference by the Con- 



11 



gress of the United States with the local law of 
property. I deny that there has been uninter- 
rupted peace, by which is meant exemption from 
agitation of the slavery question; and wliat little 
we have had is not attributable to any such cause 
as that assigned. I have shown that up to 1S20 
there was no legislation on the subject which 
could affect the peace of the Union in any way; 
but the peace which we have enjoyed is attribut- 
able to another cause. 

I do not know whether I may not be alone in 
the opinion, but it seems to me apparent, that at 
all times, when there have been two great national 
parties, and so long as they have adhered to 
their organization, and continued their struggle 
for the ascendency, there has been no formidalile 
agitation on the subj(;ct of slavery. The first 
attempt — certainly the first successful attempt, to 
prohibit slavery in the Territories followed almost 
immediately the utter destruction of the old 
Federal party, soon after the Hartford conven- 
tion in 1S14; and the troubles which we now 
have, and have had, since 1848, are the result 
of the crumbling of the two parties, to some ex- 
tent, in that year, and the disorganization and 
dismemberment of the Whig party since that 
time. 

Mr. President, I shall have occasion to speak 
of the proceedings and acts of a portion of our 
northern brethren on the subject of slavery, and 
I take leave now to say, that, however general the 
terms I employ in reference to them, I by no 
means design to include a majority of the people 
of the non-slaveholding States. I believe they are 
■ generally conservative, abiding the compromises 
of the Constitution, and respecting the rights of 
the southern States. Unfortunately, in common 
with their fellow-citizens in other States, when 
not stimulated to exertion by the rivalship of 
national organizations, they are too apt to relax 
their vigilance, and suffer the unworthy minority 
to act in the name of all, by which they are made 
responsible for acts they condenui; but, whenever 
the consequences have excited apprehensions of 
danger to our institutions, they have rallied to the 
support of the Constitution and the preservation 
of the Union. They will do so again. 

Soon after the acquisition of Louisiana there 
Were decided manifestations of discontent at the 
North, not on account of the Africans then held in 
slavery in the acquired territory — their condition 
was not changed, nor on account of any appre- 
hended increase of their numbers — for Congress 
prom]>tly exercised its constitutional power to 
prohibit the importation of slaves into that Ter- 
ritory; so that the practical effect of the annex- 
ation was to restrict slavery extension — but the 
real cause of the discontent then exhibited was 
the compromises of the Constitution, which se- 
cured to the southern States a portion of their 
political power. 

During the war of 1812, and almost in the midst 
of it, a convention was held at Hartford, in Con- 
necticut, where, among the subjc^cts taken into 
consideration, were the slave power under the 
apportionment of Representatives, the admission 
of new States, and the exclusion of foreigners 
from office. The proceedings of the convention 



resulted in several propositions to amend t'lc 
Constitution. The first, to exclude the slave 
population altogether as a basis of representation; 
second, that no new State should be admitted 
without the concurrence of two thirds of both 
Houses. The sixth amendment proposed is not 
unlike one of the planks in the platform of annthe't- 
new organization. It proposes to exclude from 
I office all persons thereafter naturalized. The re- 
t port of the convention to tifrir constituents sets 
forth the reasons for each projiosition, from which 
1 read extracts: 

"The first amenrlmetit proposed n^latcs to the apportion- 
ment of Kepresentatives among the slavelioUling States. 

i This cannot l)e claimed as a right." * * * * "Uhas 
proved tiiijiistand unef|iial in its operation. Had tin's efl'ect 
h.i'ii liursrcii. tli<' priviliiie would probably not have been 
ilrmaiid.'il ; ecrtniiily not conceded. Its tendency in future 

j will be adverse to that harmony and mutual confidence 
which are more conducive to the happii\oss and prosperity 
of every confederated State, than a mere preponderance 
of power, the prolific source of jealousies and controvtrsy, 
can be to any one of them." 

" The next amendment relates to the admission of new 
States into the Union. 

" This amendment is deemed to lie highly important, and, 
in fact, indispensable."' * « * " Af the adoption of the 
Constitution a certain balance of power among the original 
parties was eon.sidered to exist; and there was at that time, 
and yet is auning those parties, a strong affinity between 
their great and general interests. By the admission of 
these Stat(^s that balance has been materially aflVeted, and, 
unless the practice be modified, must ultimately he d« 
slroyed." 

"Another amendment, subordinate in importance, but still 
in a high degree expedient, relates to the exclusion of for- 
eigners, hereafter arriving in the United States, from the 
capacity of holding offices of trust, honor, or profit. 

" That the stock of |)opalation already in these .States is 
amply sufficient to render this nation, in due time, suffi- 
ciently great and powerful, is not a controvertible question. 
Nor will it he seriously pretended, that the national de- 
ficiency in wisdom, arts, science, arms, or virtue, needs to 
be replenished from foreign countries." 

The Federal party did not long maintain if.«! 
organization after the close of the session of the 
Hartford Convention. Its last struggle for su- 
premacy was made in the elections in 1816, when 
it was signally defeated. At the commencement 
of the first session of the Fifteenth Congress, in 
1817, it was made a matter of boast by the Re- 
publican press, that there were only six Feder- 

jalists elected to the House of Rppri'scntutives in 
all New England. During that session, on the 
4th of April, 1818, Mr. Livermore, of New Hamp- 
shire, introduced into the House a joint resolution 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution in 

j these words; 

" No person shall be held to service or labor as a slave, 
nor shall slavery l)e tolerated, m any State hereiifter ad- 

1 mifted into the Union, or made one of the United States of 
America." 

I This proposition met with little fivor at the 
time, but afterwards it was attemjitrd to be en- 
I forced against Missouri withriut any amendment 
j of the Constitution. 

I At this period, Rufus King was a member of 
I the Senate, and was then, as he had been before, 
I an aspirant for the Presidency. The Federal 
' party, of which he was a distinguished member, 
i had dissolved. There was no hope of succes.s 
' for him, or of preferment of his adherents, but by 



12 



a sortioniil or^auizalion; and at tlio next session 
of tlic snmc Cong:rt.'S3 coinnii.'nci^d the asjiVatioii 
of tho slavory question, m hich, in its progruss, 
lliioatoiiLd llic stal)iliiy of our iiistituiions. 

A rnsoluiion for llie admission of Illinois into 
the Union was earnestly opposed, because the 
constitution contained a clause allowing slaves to 
be employed in that State on hire, ibr a limited 
period; and on the filial jiassage there was a for- 
midable northern vote against the resolntion. 15ul 
there was a more perfect union of tlie northern 
Representatives, and its purpose was more fully 
dt-volojied, on the bill to authorize the people of 
Missouri to form a constitution and State govern- 
ment. In the House of Representatives a clause 
was inscrtc^d, making it a condition of admission 
that slavery should be forever prohi))ited: it was 
stricken out by the Senate, and the bill was lost 
by the disagreement of the two Houses. It was 
at the same session that the attempt was made to 

Crohibit slavery in Arkansas, to which I have 
uforc alluded. 

The agitation was continued dui-ing the whole 
of the recess. The Legislatures of most of the 
non-slaveholding Slates adopted resolutions af- 
firming the constitutionality of the proposed re- 
striction, tho same, in substance, that iVlr. Liver- 
more proposed to impose on all new States by an 
amendment to the Constitution. They instmcted 
or requested their Representatives to vote against 
the admission of any State with a constitution 
which did not contain positive prohibition of 
slavery. >Sonie of them demanded the imposi- 
tion of the restriction on Missouri by name. 

Under these circumstance the Sixteenth Con- 
gress met, and, after a severe struggle and unpar- 
alleled excitement, passed the act of 6th March, 
1820, of which I shall speak hereafter. 

This memorable agitation of the slavery ques- 
tion in Congress occurred during a period of 
exemption from political jnirty controversy; but 
it was not a time of peace. It was the period 
called the "era of good feeling," when, in my 
judgment, more mischief was perpetrated, more 
constitutional heresies recognized l)y Congress 
in its legislation, than during any other equal 
period in our history. It was tollowed by a short 
period of exemjition from agitation of the slavery 
controversy, not the consequence, however, of 
the legislation of Congress, but the result of the 
reorganization of national, political parties, com- 
menced in 1825, destroying all hope of the suc- 
cess of a sectional ]iarty. 

There wi;re AI»oiiiionists tlien as now, of both 
wings, to which the honorable Senator from Ver- 
mont has alluded. They were comparatively 
quiet, however, until about the year 18.33, when 
they commenced operations in the North with 
great activity. In 1835, (here were two great 
parties completely organized, both national, and 
therefore not disposed, if tlu-y could alTord, to 
encourage Abolitionism or Free-Soilism. The 
conseqvunce was, that the abtdition orators were 
not favorably received, or kindly treated, in the 
northern citiis. Their n)eeiings were suppressed 
by violence in Uiica, New York; Monijielier, 
Vermont. In Boston tliey were denied access to 
Fanucil Hall; and whAi they assembled at an- 



other place they were expelled by a mob, I have 
before me an account of the cedebration of the 
twentieth anniversary of that riot. 

It appears that the newspaper press of both 
political parties, in all the north(;rn States, were 
earnest and eloquent in their denunciations of 
thatabolition movement. I commend totheediiora 
who now sustain organizations much more dan- 
gerous, to read again tJieir productions, and recon- 
cile, if they can, the present with the past. Here 
is a sjiecimen from tne New York Courier and 
Enquirer: 

" It is lime now for tliis siihjrrt to bo taken in liand seri- 
ously. Tin; inovijinunts of llie iiniiiediati; Alioljliiiiiists in- 
volve not iiien^ly llio wcllare of our coniitry, but tire veiy 
cxisrRnce oflierin-titulion?; and every cili/.i'n. from Maine 
to Missisi-ippi, who lias not already niiulc np his mind to a 
willingnef^s to see our ('onfederacy dissolved, oor wliole 
frame of government broken up, and an e.tpcriTiient made 
to b.ntor it amidst the confusion, misery, and liloodshcd of 
a revolution, is bound to grapple at once with the scdiliotii 
fanaticism now abroad. It has become the duty of all 
classes and all parties — of tlie iiall of legislation — of the 
press — of the pulpit, and of t^very good citizen within his 
own particular sphere of inllnence, to assist in putting down 
this TREASON that is atalkin'^ liirough our borders." 

There are several other extracts from different 
journals of that period, of like import, and not 
less worthy of perusal. It may be instructive to 
contrast the past with the present position of the 
northern press. 

The Reverend Theodore Parker, comparing 
the present with the past condition and prospects 
of his party, in a speech delivered at the celebra- 
tion to which Ihave alluded, says: 

" Since this day twenty years ago. what a step I See all. 
these parties coming up into power — the Free-Soil p;irty, 
the Republican parly — which are only the wings of the 
great anti-Slavery party wliieh is to he, and will command 
the continent. Just now, it is very plain that thi," only 
(|Ueslion before the people, at tie:- next naticinal eli-c'ion, 
will be, ' Shall the slave poW(!r jxissess the presidential 
officer, or shall the power of freedom possess it." I say, 
there is to be only one question before the p'jople, and thai 
is the question." 

J he Legislatures of some of the non-slavchold- 
...Q States were not les.s decided than the press in 
the condemnation of political agitations on the 
subject of domestic slavery. I have before me 
resolutions passed by the Lr'gi.slature of Nev/ 
York, in 183G, condi'inning all such agitations in 
clear and emphatic language; contrasting strongly 
with the resolves of the Legislature of the same 
State during the pendency of the Missouri ques- 
tion, and with some very recently adopted. The 
same remarks will apply to the resolves of otlier 
northern Legislatures at the ditfercnt periods 
mcntioni'd. 

Political agitation on the suliject of slavery was 
renewed by northern members (X'nding the jirop- 
ositions for the annexation of Texas, and ri'sulied 
in n provision making it one of (he conditions 
that slavery should i'oreverbe jirohibited in States 
to be organized north of 2'y^ 3U'. Nor did that 
quiet agitation; it was resumed during the Mex- 
ican war, when an attempt was made to ]>rohibit 
slavery in anticipation of the acquisition of ter- 
ritory by an aim ndment to an appropriation bill. 

The peace of the country wasa;jain inteiTupted 
by the renewal of the agitation of the disturbing 
question of domestic slavery in the first attempt 
to legislate for the territory and people acquired 



13 



by the treaty with Mexico in 1848. The con- 
ti-oversy was attended with greater excitement in 
Congress, and caused more apprehension among 
the people than any other since 18:30, until it was 
finally adjusted by the compromise measures of 
1850. The efficiency of thi' Democratic party had 
been greatly impaired by the defi;ction of its Free- 
Soil members who organized a new party at Buf- 
falo. The Whig party, greatly reduced in num- 
bers, was also composed in part of Free-Soilers, 
who cooperated with the party organized at Buf- 
falo and the Abolitionists, in [iromoting, instead 
of discountenancing, agitation in Congress. The 
compromise of 1850, we are informed by the 
minority report, "secured votes from the free 
States, enough, with those of the slaveholding 
States, to adopt it;" but " it was not satisfactory 
to the free States;" and the Senator from Vermont 
tells us that they acquiesced in it very nductantly. 
It is undoubtedly true that the Al^olitionists and 
Free-Soilers in the North were dissatisfied with 
that compromise; and those of them who pro- 
fessed to acquiesce in it, did so because acquies- 
cence seemed to he very general, and there was 
no hope of preferment without it. Many of them 
succeeded in getting into the Thirty-Third Con- 
gress under the name of Whigs; and, during the 
discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the 
House, they contended that opposition to that 
bill was a principle of the Whig party. My 
honorable friend from the other House, now near 
me, [Mr. Lindlet,] knows that I speak by the 
card, when I say they so asserted. The Aboli- 
tionists and Free-Soilers who made that pretense, 
are now known by another name. The conserva- 
tive National Whigs from the North, who were 
in that Congress, with few exceptions, although 
they voted against the bill, have been made to 
give place to the representatives of a new sec- 
tional organization, animated by a spirit of aggres- 
sion — the source of our troubles now. 

Mr. President, I will now direct my attention 
to the allegation that solemn compacts were 
broken and compromises disregarded by the pas- 
sage of Ihe Kansas-Nebi'aska act in 1S54. The 
first is the so-called Missouri compromise. 

I have already mentioned the agitation of tlie 
slavery question, and the failure of the first Mis- 
souri bill at the second session of the Fifle(;nth 
Congress, and the proceedings and resolves of 
the State Legislatures in relation to the admission 
of Missouri. At the first .session of the Sixteenth 
Congress, a second bill to authorize the people of 
Missouri to form a constitution and Slate govcrn- 
m(?iit, became the suljject of a most exciting and 
fearful controversy, which terminated in the pas- 
sage of the act of (iih March, 18'J0, by which it 
is said the slave-holding States secured the admis- 
sion of Missouri by agreeing and enacting that ! 
slavery sliould be forever prohibited in the terri- 
tory north and west of that .St^tte. 

What I have lo say in regard to that act will be 
better understood by reference to the proceedings 
of the session. There were three distinct meas- 
ures pending in both Houses. One was the abo- 
lition of slavery in the Territories. Notice of 
a bill for that purpose was given in the House of 
Representatives by Mr. Strong. Resolutions 



were introduced by Mr. Taylor, of New York, 
and a joint resolution by Mr. Foot, of Connec- 
ticut. Notice of a bill to prohibit slavery in the 
Territories was given, and the Ijill introduced in 
the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. A bill 
for the admission of Maine, and the Missouri bill 
before mentioned. The Maine bill was the first 
to pass the House; it was amended in the Senate 
by adding the provisions of the Missouri bill, and. 
a provision prohibiting slavery in the territory 
north and we.st of Missouri; thus co(istitating, 
by the union of the three measures in one bill, 
what has since been called an " omnibus." The 
House disagreed to tlie amendments, and pas.sed 
the Missouri bill, with the restriction of slavery as 
a condition of admission. The Senate, which had 
before disagreed to the restriction in Missouri, it 
was known would not yield: there was what the 
Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumxer,] in the 
debate on the Nebraskabill, called " adead lock." 

The act of Massachusetts authorizing the peo- 
ple of Maine to form a State government, con- 
tained the condition, that the new State should be 
admitted into the Union before the 4th of March. 
The Representatives from that part of Massachu- 
setts forming the nev>r State implored a speedy 
adjustment of the question. Things had become 
critical, more so for Maine than Missouri; and 
the 2d of March was a day of activity. A joint 
committee of conference had been appointed on 
the disagreements between the two Houses, and, 
upon their recommendation, the Maine bill wa3 
relieved of the amendments of the Senate, and 
passed; the Missouri bill was amended by striking 
out the restriction on the State, and attaching to 
it, as the eighth section, the ninth of the omni- 
bus, prohibiting slavery in the Territory — the ap- 
propriate subject of a separate bill, which might 
as well have been attached to the Maine as tho 
Missouri bill, except that it related to territory 
adjf)ining Missouri. Under this arrangement, 
Maine was admitted into the Union; Missouri 
was not. 

What, then, is the nature and effect of the pro- 
vision in the act of 18^?0, the repeal of which is 
complained of? It must be conceded that, un- 
less it is a part of a compact obligatory on the 
northern as well as the southern States, it has no 
higher sanctity than any other act of legislation, 
repealable at any time. 

In the minority report, it is regarded as a stip- 
ulation in a compact obligatory on the southern 
States, though not binding on the northern States, 
except as an ordinary act of legislation; it being 
the doctrine of that report, as 1 understand it, 
that a State or section can only be bound by the 
vote of a majority of its Representatives, meaii- 
ing, of course, moraUy bound by the measure tis 
a compact. 

The test vote on the so-called compromise was 
taken in both Houses, on the 2d March, on 
striking out tin; provision prohibiting slavery in 
that State, as n-com mended by the committee of 
conference. In the Senate, one free Slate oidy 
voted in the affirmative; thrto were divided. In 
tht! House of Representatives, of the members 
from llu! free Slates, only fourteen, out of one 
' hundred and one present, voted in the affirmative ^ 



14 



and the majority of the Reprcsunlatives of every 
free State voted in the negative, except Rhode 
Island, wliich divided.* 

It appiars, thin, that accordins: to the principle 
of the minority report, not one of the non-slave- 
lioldins; States was a party to the alleged compact 
of 18:10, or under any legal or moral obligation 
to observe it as such; and from what has since 
occurred, it may be inferred that their Represent- 
atives acted upon that principle from the first — 
only as many of their immber voting for it as 
were necessary, together with the votes of the 
southern Representatives, to carry a measure 
wliich they knew was understood by southern 
members to be a compromise, and which they 
did not intend should be ol)ligatory on the States 
represented by them. It was aeecpted by the 
southern States, in the hope of receiving exemp- 
tion from future agitation and aggression; and 
that they expected to accomplish. They have 
never asked Congress to legislate slavery into any 
terriiin-y,or establish it anywhere by law. They 
have always stood on the defensive, claiming only 
the protection of the laws and exemption from 
aggression. 

The people of Missouri having formed a con- 
stitution and Slate govenunent for themselves, 
under, and in conformity with, the jirovisions of 
the act of 18:20, anticipated no op])osition to the 
admission of the State into the Union, and put 
the new governmiiiU in full operation; but it was 
soon ascertained that northern States, having 
secured the admission of Maine, and the prohibi- 
tion of slavery in the Territories by law, chose 
to regard the act of 18i20 as an ordinary act of 
legislation, not a compact; rejindiating all obliga- 
tion, legal or moral, to admit Missouri as a slave- 
holding State. This is apparent from resolutions 
passi.'d by the Legislatures of New Vork and 
Vermont, as well as the acts and votes of the Rep- 
resentatives of all the northern Slates in Congress. 

The resolutions of Vermont, which I commend 
to tlie special attention of the honorable author 
of the minority report, in terms deny that there 
was any obligation to admit Missouri, and in- 
struct their Senators and Representatives to vote 
against the admission of Missouri. 

Those of New Vork reatfirm the resolves of the 
year before, against the admission of any new State 
whose constitution does not prohibit slavery. 

The resolutions will be found on pages 2G and 
50, Senate Journal, second Session of the Six- 
teentli Congress. 

At that session Mr. Lowndes, of South Caro- 
lina, introduced into the Hou.se of Representa- 
tives a joint resoluliiui, in the ordinary form, for 
the admission of Missouri. AftiT an exciting 
debate, it was rejected by a vote of 79 yeas to 93 
linys— a majority of the Representatives of every 
non-slaveholding State voting in the negative.! 
The ostensible cause of opposition to Missouri 
was a clause in her constitution recpiiring the 
Legislature to pass laws prohiij'iting the migration 
of free negroes and mulattoes into the Slate; 
which, it was contended, contravened that clause 
of the Constitution which declares the citizens of 



* Sue Appendix, No. 2. f Soe .'Vppcmli.v, No. 3. 



each State shall be entitled to all ilie privileges 
of citizens of the several States. 

The Senate passed a resolution, with a proviso 
to the effect that it should not be construed to give 
the assent of Congress to any clause in the con- 
stitution of Missouri, if any there be, contra- 
vening the clause of the Constitution of the United 
States respecting the (utizens of the' several States. 

In the House, many aniendmi'nts were ])roposcd 
to the Senate resolution, ri-quiring thai the clause 
objected to should be expunged from the consti- 
tution, as a condition precedent to the admission 
of the State into the Union. One of them, per- 
haps more, projiosed to constitute the Legisla- 
ture a convention, with power to amend the con- 
stitution as demanded; one was so aissurd as to 
require the clause to be expunged by the Legis- 
lature before the 1st of December, 1821, under a 
constitution which required the concurrence of 
two successive Legislatures in an amendment to 
the constitution. All failed, liowever. 

Mr. McLane, of Delaware, submitted a reason- 
able proposition, the effect of which would have 
been substantially the same as the resolution 
afterwards passed; that is, to require such con- 
struction of the Constitution and laws of the 
State as not to deny citizens of each State any of 
the privileges and immunities of citizens of the 
several States. It was rejected, as wore other 
ame;idments of the like import, obviously because 
the real cause of opposition was not the clause 
complained of in the debate, which conferred 
upon the Li'gislalure no power wliich had not 
been exercised in other Slates without complaint. 

Massachusetts, whose Representatives always 
voted against every proposition to admit Missouri 
under her existing constitution, ostensibly on 
the ground that, by excluding from the State; free 
negroes and mulattoes of othin- States, citizens 
of other States were denied the privileges and 
immunities of citizens of that Stale, had, at the 
time, a law in force which provided: 

"Tliat no person, being an Alriean or negro, other than 
a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, or a eitizoi) ol" some 
one of the United Slates, (to be evidenced hy a certificate 
frotn the Seeretaiy of the State of which lie sliall be a 
cilixen,) shall tarry within this Commoinveallh for a longer 
time than two months ; and, upon complaint made to any 
justice of the peace within this (Commonwealth, that any 
such person lias been within the same more than two 
montlis, the said justice shall order Iho said person to 
depart out of this Commonwealth ; and in ease that the 
saiil African or ncjio shall not depart, as aforesaid, any 
jusiic-e "f the p:;ace within this Commonwealth, upon 
complaint and proof made that such person lias conlinued 
within this Commonwealth ten days after notice ^ivcn him 
or her to depart as aforesaid, shall commit the p;Tsoi|«to 
any house of correction within the county, there to be kept 
to hard labor, agreeably to the rules and orders of the said 
house, until the session^ of the peace next to be liolden 
within and for the saiil county ; and the master of the said 
house of correction is hereby required anil directed to 
transmit an attested copy of the wrmani of commitment to 
the said court, on the first day of their said session ; and if, 
upon trial at the said court, it sliall be m:iile to appear that 
the said person has thus conlinui'd within this Common- 
wealth contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall bo 
wliip[)cd not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to di-part 
out of this (^immonwealth wiiliin ten days; and if he or 
she shall not so dcpirt, the same process shall be liad and 
pniii>hment iiirticle<l, and so loties ijuolics.'' 

It is not credible that, with this law in force 
in JVIassachusetts at the time, the Representa- 
tives of that Slate, in both Houses, voted against 



15 



the admission of Missouri for no other cause 
than that her constitution required similar k'gis- 
lation, though not necessarily so severe. During 
the debate on the Nebraska bill in the Senate, the 
Massachusetts law was quoted by the Senator 
from South Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] and both 
the Senators from Massacluisetts said its object 
was to k<^ep runaway slaves out of that State; it 
occurred to me then, and I think still, it was the 
most singular discharge of the obligation of that 
State under the Constitution that could be imag- 
ined, this MassachusetUs law for the return of 
fugitives! — to seize all negroes, bond or free, con- 
fine them in a work-house at hard labor for the 
benefit of the town, and in due time whip them 
out of the State, the process to be repeated as 
often a.s they are caught in the State. 

The first law of Missouri providing for the ex- 
clusion of free negroes and mulattoes, was drawn 
by me. It contains most of the provisions of the 
Massachusetts law, except the work-house part 
and the Latin; we of Missouri are not so thrifty as 
to set prisoners detained for trial at hard labor, 
and coin dimes out of them; nor do we enact laws 
f^Dr the punishment of any persons in a language 
they do not utsderstand. 

After the rejection of Mr. McLane's amend- 
ment to the Senate resolution, the subject was 
referred to a select committee, who reported an 
amendment, so as to make it a resolution declaring 
that " Missouri shall be admitted into the Union 
on an equal footing with the original States in all 
respects whatsoever upon a fundamental condi- 
tion;" substantially the same afterwards passed. 
Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, moved an amend- 
ment, which, and the vote upon it, will show how 
little the Representatives of the North were dis- 
posed to regard the so-called Mi-ssouri compro- 
mise. He moved to amend the amendment of 
the committee by striking out all after the word 
respects, and insert the following: 

" Whenever the pe/)pIeof thesaui State, by a convention 
appointed aocordins to the manner provided by the ' Act to 
authorize tlie people of Missouri to form a constitution and 
State sovernment, and for tlie admission of such State into 
the t'liion on an cifiial footing; with the oriL'inal States, and 
to pniliibit shivery in certain Territories,' approved .Maieh 
6, la-H), adopt a constitution conformably to the jjrovisions 
of said act, and shall, in addition tx) said provisions, /inYAcr 
provide, in and by said eonstitution, that neither s/nreri/ nor 
involuntary scrritinle shall he allowed in said State of Mis- 
souri, unless inOicted as a punishment for crimes committed 
against the laws of said State whereof the party accused 
sliall be duly convicted : Provided, That the civil condition 
of those persons \vho now are held to sei-vice in Missouri 
shall not be aflectcd by this last provision." 

On this proposition the vote was 61 yeas to 107 
nays, a majority of the Representatives of Mas- 
sacliusetts and Vermont, and of every other non- 
slaveholding State except three, voting in the 
affirmative.* This I regard as a direct disaffirm- 
ance of the alleged compromise, denying all obli- 
gation to admit Missouri with " a constitution 
conformably to the provisions of the act of 6th 
March, 18:20," and r(;quiring the formation of a 
new constitution, not only in conformity with that 
act, but expressly prohibiting slavery within that 
State. 

The amendment proposed by the select com- 



■ See Appendix, No. 4. 



mittee to the Senate resolution was agreed to, 
but the resolution as amended was rejected on 
the third reading. It was afterwards reconsid- 
ered, and again rejected. On each vote rejecting 
the resolution a majority of the Representatives 
of every free State voted in the negative. 

On the 22d February, Mr. Clay proposed a 
joint committee to take into consideration and 
report on the expediency of admitting Missouri, 
or making some provision adapted to her actual 
condition. Such a coiumittee was accordingly 
appointed, and reported a joint resolution, which 
was afterwards passed. It was reported on the 
26th of February. The resolution was ordered 
to a third reading, and passed the House on the 
same day by a vote of 87 yeas against 81 nays. 
Every non-slaveholding State, except two, voting 
by a majority of its Representatives against the 
admission of Missouri, even on the fundamental 
condition contained in the resolution.* In the 
Senate the vote was more favorable. 

The joint resolution having passed both Houses 
was approved on the 2d of March, 1821. The 
fundamental condition was afterwards accepted 
by Missouri by a solemn public act, as required, 
which formed a compact between the United 
States and Missouri for the admission of that 
State. 

The act of 1820 enabled the people of Missouri 
to form a constitution and State government; they 
availed themselves of it, formed a constitution 
under its provisions, and in conformity with them. 
The State became entitled to admission by the 
terms of the law, but was rejected by the non- 
slaveholding States. She is in the Union under 
a compact between her and the United States, 
made in 1821, and not under any supposed com- 
promise between the northern and southern 
States in 1820. 

The northern States having repudiated the 
Missouri compromise by refusing to admit Mis- 
souri, after having procured the admission of 
Maine and the prohibition of slavery m the Ter- 
ritories by law, the southern States were under 
no obligation, legal or moral, to observe it longer; 
but, as I have said, they continued to regard itaa 
binding both jiarties, and on every suitable occa- 
sion endeavored to obtain a recognition of it by 
the northern States, but without success. 

When the bill to organize the Territory of 
Oregon was before the Senate in 1848, an amend- 
ment recognizing the Missouri compromise was 
proposed and carried; every southern Senator 
voting for it; and (if I am not mistaken), every 
northern Senator present against it, with few 
exceptions. It was defeated in the House of 
Representatives by northern votes. This I re- 
gard as a decided disavowal of the obligation of 
that compromise. 

Still southern representatives continued to hope 
and to urge the recognition of that compromise, 
until they were compelled themselves to abandon 
it by the voti-s of the northern States in the 
attempt at legislation for the territory acquired 
by treaty with Mexico. During the memorable 
controversy which was settled by the compro- 



' Scu Appendix, No. 5. 



16 



rniso mo.isuros of 1850, southorn rcprcsentfitives 
ri'pcaieiiiy enclr-avorcd to olitain ti recognition of 
the Missouri compromise so-called by extend- 
ing it to till! newly-acquired territory, and were 
always repulsed Ijy the northern States. Tiiey had 
no other alternative, therefore, than to accept and 
act upon the interpretation o;iven hy the northern 
States to the legislation of 18:20 from the begin- 
ning, to be obeyed while in force, but suliject to 
repeal in the same manner as other acts of Con- 
gress having none of the sanctity of compacts. 

The compromise of 1850 was a practical renun- 
ciation of the Missouri compromise by both 
parties; the compromise line, so-caIl('d, was ob- 
literated, and tlie principle of non-intervention, 
which before only applied to the territory south 
of that line, was extended to the whole of the 
ncwly-acf|uired territory. The southern States 
did not ask Congress to legislate slavery into any 
territory; they asked only what they were en- 
titled to of rigiit, that there should be no interven- 
tion; and to obtain that they were obliged to make 
new concessions. 

The act of 1854 was no violation of any exist- 
ing compact or compromise, but tlie constitutional 
repeal of an ordinary act of Congress of doubtful 
authority as a law, and of no moral obligation 
as a compact. The most that can be said is, that 
the legislation of 1820 was carried, and the Mis- 
souri prohibition repealed, by the vote of the 
southern States, without the assent of the northern 
States; and there it ends both as a compromise 
and a precedent of legislative construction of the 
Constitution. 

The compromise of 1820, as it is called , always 
disowned by northern representatives, was thus 
finally renounced by all parti(^s, and now the 
representatives of southern States are charged 
with n l)reach of faith in repealing the Missouri 
prohibition, which had always i)een regarded by 
the North as an ordinary act of legislation. It 
is true, as the honorable Senator from Vermont 
says, that it was repealed l)y the southern States, 
their representatives, with a few honorable excep- 
tions, voting for it, and a majority of the repre- 
sentatives of the free States against it; but what 
of that.' If the North did not assent to the 
repeal, it never assented to the compromise; there 
was a larger northern vote in favor of the repeal, 
tlian in favor of the alleged compromise of 1820. 

Tuesday, .Ipril 8, 1856. 

Mr. President, I now proceed to the consider- 
ation of the Kansas-Nebraska act, the circum- 
stances which attended its pcissagc, and the con- 
sequences that (lowed from it. The objections 
are stated in the minority rejiort. I refer to that, 
because I take it to be the exhibition of the entire 
strength of the argument, cli.'arly and forcibly 
stated, of that side of the Senate belonging to 
what is ca!l(,'d the Republican anti-Nebraska 
parly, against the act. 

Ttie ]irovision upon which the commentary is 
made is tiiis: 

"That the dmstitntion, and nil ilip l.-iws of the United 
Slates which arc not locally Inapplicable, ^li.ill have the 
fiaiiin foroi! and ofl'coi within Ihc said Tpnilory of Kansas 
as cljcwliere wiUiia iho United States, exccj/t Uie eiijluli 



I section of the act propamtorj' to tliR admission of Misgnari 

into the Union, approved March 6, IS20, which, l>c'inK iii- 
j consistent wiUi the principle of iioii-interveiiliDn by Con- 
i gress with slavi'ry in the .'•'lates an<l Tcrritoiics, as recog- 
I nized hy the lcfri.slation of 18ri0, coniniorily c;jll(d the conn 
j promise inoasure.ii, is lier<'hy declared inoperative and void ; 

it heiii!; the true intent and nieaniiig of this act not lo h-gis- 
I late slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it 
I therefroaj, but to leave the people thi-reof perfectly free to 
j form and regtilatr; their domestic institutions in tlieir own 

way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: 
I Provided, 'J'hat notliin:,' herein -e(Hitained shall be con- 
I strucd to revive or put in force any law or rejnlation wlii<di 
; may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, 
j either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolisliing 

slavery." 

The first remark I have to make on this clause 
is, that it does not legislate slavery into the Ter- 
ritory of Kansas; it does not assume the power 
to establish it. On the contrary, the proviso was 
adopted on the motion of a southern Senator for 
the express purpose of excluding any conclusion 
to that effect. It was moved, I understaiid, (for 
I was absent at the time,) at the suggestion of an 
honorable Senator from Michigan. In the next 
place, it states truly that the Missouri prohibition 
IS inconsistent with the principle of the legisla- 
tion of 1850. The so-called Missouri compro- 
mise was based on a geographical line — with the 
prohibition on one side and non-intirvention on 
the other. The compromise of 1850 obliterated 
that line, and established non-intervention every- 
where as the principle of legislation for the Ter- 
ritories. The legislation of the two periods are 
inconsistent in principle. I admit that, as legis- 
lative acts, they might stand together; but when 
we speak of legislative compromises, wliich de- 
pend entirely for their binding force on the moral 
obligation of the parties to oijservc, we refer to 
the princi]ile established, rather than the district 
to whicli it is applied, in a particular case. A prin- 
]de of legislation adopted as a com)>vomise of a 
sectional controversy, always dangerous to the 
harmony and stability of the Union, fails of its 
purpose if it is not applied to all cases where 
such controversy may arise. The compromise 
of 1850 adopts a principle of legislation for the j 
government of Territories, applicable, and to be 
api)li(;d, to all such legislation for any Territory, 
or it is a mere temporary expedient of legislation, 
not a compromise of a controversy. 

The next subject of complaint is the provision 
in respect to the right of suffrage. It is said that 
persons are entitled to vote on a very short resi- 
dence. In Kansas and Nebraska it could not be 
otherwise; a provision that would require any 
length of residence as a qualification, in ti-rritory 
not previously settled, would be misapplied. It 
should always be borne in mind, when we refer 
to examples of territorial legislation, that down 
to the year 1820, all Territories were organized 
by establishing for them what is called the first 
grade of government — vesting the [lowers of legis- 
lation in u governor and judijjes. In the Terri- 
tory of Orleans, now State of Louisiana, there 
was added a council; not eloclive, however. Un- 
der this organization, the IVrritory was settled, 
and the people prepared for the second grade of 
government, with an elective Legislature, and it 
wa.s then very proper to require some length of 
residence as a qualification of voters. 



17 



The next objection is to the provision allowing 
aliens, who have merely made a declaration of 
an intention to become citizens, to vote. This 
provision was, I believe, inserted as an amend- 
ment. I was not present at the time, and do not 
know the reason of its adoption. It is by no 
means remarkable, however, that such a provis- 
ion should be found in the legislation of Con- 
gress for the Territories, since it is found in that 
of several of the States. It seems to me more 
remarkable that the honorable author of the mi- 
nority report did not perceive that it might prove 
a cause of disturbance in Kansas as it has else- 
where. 

The minority report complains that "the sub- 
ject of slavery, which Congress has been unable 
to settle in such a way as the slave States will 
sustain, is now to be turned over to those who 
have or shall become inhabitants of Kansas," to 
arrange " regardless of their character, political 
or religious views, or place of nativity." This 
objection imjjlies that Congress ought to have 
made some test of character, or of political or re- 
ligious views, or place of nativity, as a qualifica- 
tion for .suffrage or oflice; but I apprehend that 
such legislation for the Territories would scarcely 
be tolerated, altliough it might settle questions as 
exciting as any connected with slavery, and 
which have already produced disturbances more 
serious than any that have occurred in Kansas. 
1 need not recount the scenes of disorder, riot, 
and even bloodshed, at St. Louis in 1854, and 
more recently at Cincinnati, Louisville, and New 
Orleans, far transcending in violence, and more 
fatal in their results, than any in Kansas. 

The minority report proceeds: 

" Tims was tlic proolainatioii to the world to become in- 
habitants of Kansas, and enlist in this great enterprise, t)y 
the force of numbers, by voto^, to decide for it the great 
question. Was it to be expected that this gri^at proelama- 
toin for the political tournament would be listened to with 
indilfercnce and ajiathy .' Was it prepared and presented 
in that spirit? Did it relate toasuhjeet on which tlie p(!ople 
were cool or indifferent.' A large part of the people of this 
country look on domestic slavery as 'only evil, and that 
continually,' alike to master and to slave, ami to the com- 
munity ; to be htft along to the management or enjoyment 
of the people of the .States where it exists, but not to be ex- 
tended, more especially as it gives, or may give, political 
supremacy to a minority of the people of this country in the 
United States Government." 

The conclusion of the honorable author of the 
report is, that it was the right and duty of all 
parties interested in that question to make an 
effort to overcome each other on the theater of 
this political tournament, and proceeds to justify 
the organization of the aid societies, by saying that 
associated oilort was as commendable fur this 
purpose as any other could be; and that " it was 
their right and duty to put forth all reasonable 
exertions, by lawful means, to advance the great 
object," — political supremacy. It was to accom- 
plish what 1 have shown the Hartford Convention 
proposed to accomplish by an amendment to the 
Constitution — to overpower the southern States 
by depriving them of that portion of representa- 
tion which is founded on^slave population. Do 
we not see, sir, that froin the beginning the policy 
was first to prohibit slavery in the Territories, 
and make them free States, as thiy necessarily 
must bo under such legislation, until a sulHcieat 



number should be brought into the Union to re- 
peal that clause of the Constitution which gave 
to the southern States a portion of their political 
power.' 

This reminds me of a part of the history of 
the past, which I omitted yesterday. In 1818, on 
the 12th of March, John Q,uincy Adams, then 
Secretary of State, vindicated our title to Texas 
by an unanswerable argument, in a letter to the 
Spanish Minister. At that time the effort had 
been tnade to abolish slavery in all the Territo- 
ries, with a viiw to the great object of political 
supremacy. If the atteinpt had been successful, 
Texas, then being a part of our territory, might 
have been formed into half a dozen free States; 
all the territory west of the Mississippi, except 
Missouri, would also have been organized into 
free States, and the time would not have been far 
distant when that much desired object, political 
supremacy, might have been accomplished, as 
originally proposed at Hartford, by an amend- 
ment to the Constitution. But, sir, the first at- 
tempt had failed, and the result. of the controversy 
then pending in Congress was doubtful; when 
there occurred what then seemed to me a myste- 
rious change of policy. In the very next year 
the whole of Texas was ceded to Spain, and 
§5,000,U00 paid in exchange for Florida. This is 
one of the reasons why I said yesterday that, 
during the " era of good feeling," more mischief 
was perpetrated than in any other equal period 
of our history. 

Well, sir, Texas was ceded; the whole contro- 
versy M^as then confined to our territory in the 
north of it; and, in my opinion, but for that, there 
would not have been a sufficient number of north- 
ern votes obtained to carry the legislation of 1820, 
even with the prohibition of slavery north of the 
line then established, leaving open to southern 
States only what is now Arkansas and the coun- 
try immediately west, and that upon the princi- 
ple of non-intervention, which left it equally open 
to the northern States. 

Now, Mr. President, I propose to notice some 
of the circumstances attending the passage of the 
act in question. The first Nebraska bill (differ- 
ing from that afterwards passed) was reported to 
the Senate on the 4th January. 

On the 16th of the same month, 'Mr. Di;con, of 
Kentucky, moved an amendment proposing to 
repeal the Missouri prohibition. There was no 
such provision, or anything equivalent to it, in 
the bill. On the next day, the Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. Summer] t)ffered his amendment 
substantially to reenact the prohibition. I was at 
that time confined to my room, but I remember 
very well seeing a document, not exactly the 
same I have in my hand; I think it had more 
signatures to it than are here a)ipendi!d. This 
pamphlet is dated January the IDih. The prop- 
osition to organize the two Territories was re- 
ported as a substitute for the bill, on the 23d of 
January, and consequently this paper could not 
have had reference to it; but the subject was 
before Congress. It was known that a large 
numberof the members of the two Houses would 
notconsrni to voti.> for a jiroposition containing 
the pruhibilion of slavery, whatever they might 



18 



otherwise be willing to do. This document.which 
was evidently gotten up for agitation in advance, 
jHirports to be signed by " S. F. Chase, Senator 
from Oliio; Cliarles Sumner, Senator from Mas- 
-sncluisetts; J. 11. Giddings and Edward Wade, 
Rejiresenlalives from Oliio; Gerritt Smith, Rep- 
resentative from New "V ork; Alexander De Witt, 
RejM-eseiitativc from Massachusetts;" in which 
they say: 

" VVe arraign tlio bill as a proj;s violaiioii of a sacred 
ptedgc ; as a criminal betrayal of precinus rijihts ; as [lart 
and parcel of an atrocious plot to (.'xcliidc from a vast iin- 
occu|»ird region, ininiigraiits from the Old World, and free 
laborers from our own .■>tatcs, and convert it into a dreary 
region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves." 

Such is tlie language employed with respect to 
the Inil when it contained no provision on the 
subject, leaving the Missouri prohibition unrc- 
jiealed, which, if it had any force, excluded 
slavery. But the object was to get up the political 
agitation of the slavery question. 1 need not tell 
Senators here wliat was the result of it. If any 
of them have forgotten it, let tluMii read the Jour- 
nals, and see how the memorials came pouring in 
upon us during the pendency of the bill; some of 
whicli were written before the substitute was 
reported. 

The address invites the people to take their 
maps, and see how (extensive and valuable the 
country, and how great the cnonnity of excluding 
forcigner.s and )iorthern laborers " from the rich 
lands and large territory" embraced by the bill; 
and proceeds: 

'• It is hoped, doubtless, by compellinethc commerce and 
tlio whole travel between tlu! liast and the West to pass 
for hundreds of miles through a slavcboldiu!; region in the 
heart of the continent, and by th(; intiucnce of a territorial 
poverninent controlled by the slave pc)\vcr. to cxtiniiuish 
freedom and establish slavery in the Stales and Territories 
of tile Pacific, and thus pernianenlly sulpjwi;ate the whole 
country to the yoke of a slaveholdin;^ despotism." 

The note appended shows that the signers had 
not, at the time of the first ]iublication, any 
knowledge of any other proposition on the subject 
of slavery than those ollered by Mr. Dixon, then 
a Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts. The note states tjiat the Ne- 
liraska bill w;is promjitly printed , and after remain- 
ing some time here amendments were reported, 
wliicli proposed two territorial governments; to 
strike out the clerical errors before referred to, 
and insert elsewlicre in the bill a clause exc/'pting 
from the laws of the United States extended over 
the territory " the Missouri prohibition." Some 
other names had appeared in the first edition, 
and we find here an aj)ology for their non-appear- 
ance in the second: 

'■ .So far as other sifjuatures than those of the independent 
Democrats in Congress have been printed m ciinneciion 
with the foregoing appeal, it has been through mistake. 'J'he 
independent Democrats represent the only povcrj'ul polil- 
ical orsanizalion lully committed again.-t the extension and 
nationalization of slavery, and, therefore, though they trust 
that then! are many in both llou>i's who will with" them 
oppose the repeal of the Missouri prohibition, they yet 
Uiought it best that an appeal to the peoph; of tin; country, 
►etiing forth their reasons for oppi)>ilion, and their determ- 
ination to raise imcw the stanil'nii of lihcitij and Dcmocraai. 
t/iould it he licatcn down in the impending struggle, should 
hear ouhj their oiin siiinutures." 

1 uiulerstand from this note that the names of 
Senators and Representatives had been subscribed 



to the first edition without their consent " through 
mistake," and, they being unwilling to be com- 
mitted to an undertaking of doubtful success, the 
six "independent Democrats" take upon tliem- 
selves the whole responsibility of renewing the 
political agitation on the subje'ct of slavery by 
this proclamation of a political tournament — a 
struggle for su])remacy by sectional organization. 

You will remember, sir, the debate in both 
Houses of Congress, and the effect on the public 
mind. Almost the instant it became proI)able 
that the bill would be passed by the House of 
Representatives, the first aid society that I ever 
heard of was formed here in Washington. One 
of the members of the House of Representativea 
from Massachusetts, (Mr. Goodrich,) was the 
president of the society, and another from Indi- 
ana, (Mr. Mace,) the secretary. It is now pre- 
tended that tliis, and other such societies, were 
organized for the purpose of ])urchasing tickets 
by wholesale and selling them by retail, at cost, 
to the emigrants who desired to go to Kansas; 
but that of which I speak was organized here by 
politicians, with a view evidently to efficiency in 
the struggle for political supremacy. 

The aid society incorporated in Alassachusetts 
declare that their object is " to determine in the 
right way the institutions of unsettled Territories 
in less time than has been required in Congress." 
I quote from their circular, part of which was 
read by the honorable Senator from Tennessee, 
[Mr. JoNKS.] 

The same society issued an address to the 
people of Missouri in September last, professing 
to explain the motives and purposes of the or- 
ganization, the substance of which appears to be 
that — "Thousands of emigrants were attracted 
by the soil and climate of Kansas, and the society 
was organized for the purpose of enablins: them 
to go conveniently and cheaply, to procure tickets 
at wholesale, and sell them to emigrants at retail 
at cost, and furnish facilities to men who mean to 
live in a free State." These /rtc(7i/ie.<!, you will 
observe, cannot be the tickets, and must be some- 
thing else; — probably it was a box of them that 
was arrested at Lexington, Missouri, very re- 
cently, marked " carpenters' tools." 

But the emigrants were " attracted liy soil and 
climate!" It is ^vonderful how sudden and ex- 
clusive became their afl'ection for this Territory 
of Kansas. Nebraska had no attraction fortiiem. 
Illinois, in the same latitude, had lost hers; and 
so had Indiana. Very suddenh',it would seem, 
thousands became captivated by a soil and climate 
of which not one in fifty had ever heard prior to 
the controversy here, in Congress, in ld.J4. This 
society, they say, was formed to enable these 
captivated emigrtmts to go " conveniently and 
cheaply !" We are told that these were among 
the very best inhabitants of Massachusetts. 
What Mils it that so suddenly came over that 
ancient Commonwealth, that she became anxious 
to exjiort her best citizens, and that it was neces- 
sary to provide for tl»m the means by which 
they could go " conveniently and chea))ly .'" 

Sir, are the jieople of MassachuscMis, or else- 
where in New England, of the high respectability 
of these emigrants, so incapable of taking care of 



19 



themselves, that they must have a society organ- I 
ized and incorporated to enable them to go I 
"conveniently and cheaply," to procure tickets i 
at wholesale and retail them at cost? An associ- ! 
ation organized in the latitude in which this con- 
ducts its operations, professing to have for its | 
object the purchase of any commodity at whole- i 
sale, and retail at cost, is, I think, suspicious. ] 
They are not in that region so unthrifty as to | 
engage in any such unprofitable trade. But they 
are to " furnish facilities to men who mean to live 
in a free State !" — a significant expression to be i 
found in the concluding part of the address to the j 
people of Missouri ! Now, what " facilities" are | 
these? Not tickets, certainly, sold to them j 
cheaply — and no other aid is furnished to enable ' 
them to get to Kansas; they deny that they fur- 
nish them with any money. Tl^ey say the 
emigrants bear all their own expenses, and all the 
society did was to furnish them with tickets. 

The facilities are for service in Kansas, and [■ 
adapted to the purpose of men who mean to live 
in a free State, that is, determined to make Kan- 
sas a fi-ee State at any cost. 

Mr. Thayer, their secretary, in February last 
undertook to reply to the message of the Presi- 
dent, and he winds up by saying that it was " a 
voluntary association ivitliin the pale of law,'' and 
therefore not to be reprobated. The honorable 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] says 
"they have violated no law, human or divine." 
That depends on what we regard as divine law. 
The Senator from New Hampshire [JMr. Hale] 
says they were organized " in the northern States 
for the purpose of aiding emigrants to go there 
with tlie avowed purpose of making Kansas a 
free State, and that they had an undoubted right 
to do so;" and asks, " Did you see any tiling crim- 
inal ? No, sir. " I do not undertake to say that 
they have violated any statute, or are punishable 
as criminals under any law. The minority re- 

fortjustifius the organization on the same ground, 
t says " it is a lawfully associated effort." Yes, 
it is incorporated — " to advance the great object" 
— political supremacy — " by lawful means, it being 
permitted by the laws of the country." 

The principle which is here announced is, that 
every thing is right, every thing is justifiable, every- 
tliing is comnK'ndAble, in th(; effort to achieve a 
political supremacy, wliich is not forbidden by 
positive law, or criminally punishable. Sir, it 
was said of the Pharisees, that they never were 
known to violate the letter of a precept, nor re- 
spect a princijile of the moral law. Is there, then, 
no protection to persons and projierty, but that 
which is to be found in the statute-book? Is that 
tlie only standard of morals, the only rule of con- 
duct for individuals, societies, or States? Mr. 
President, I have been taught to believe that there 
were obligations betwei;ii members of society and 
States which did not depend upon any positive 
enactment. There is mischief in the ojiposite 
sentiment. It has been ajiplied to the relations of 
these States, and it was very correctly remarked 
by my honorable friend from South Carolina, 
[Mr. Butler,] that v.^hat is true law, as announced 
by the Supreme Court, has iieen perverted to mis- 
chievous uses in the relations of these States' 



toward each other. I refer to the opinion of that 
court in the case of Prigg rs.The Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania, in which it is asserted (and it 
is undoubtedly true) that these States, as inde- 
pendent nations, are iiot bound to protect the 
rights of the citizens of theirco-States, in property 
found within their jurisdiction, except so far a3 
the obligation is imposed by the Constitution. 
All else is a matter of comity, and it is, unhap- 
pily, too true, that there is less comity between 
the States of this Union than between the inde- 
pend(mt Powers of Europe. 

The antagonism and hostility between the 
States and the people, engendered by the agita- 
tion of the slavery question, is aggi'avated by hos- 
tile legislation and the struggle for political power 
by a sectional party warring upon the institu- 
tions of one half the States of the Union. 

There is now in force in Massachusetts a stat- 
ute, founded on a construction of the obligation 
of that State, that " sticks in the bark" remark- 
ably close — a labored effort to keep within the 
letter and evade the spirit of the Constitution, to 
which I shall hereafter advert in another connec- 
tion. But before the passage of that act, a slave, 
escaping or taken by violence from his owner 
while sojourning or passing through that State, 
could not be arrested and restored to his owner, 
and if arrested would be discharged on habeas 
corpus, because the Constitution provides only 
for the rendition of fugitives who escape into one 
State from another. In Pennsylvania, some years 
ago, a female fugitive from another State gave 
birth to a child: the mother was returned, the 
child was held to be free; being born in the State 
was not escaping " into" it. 

You will remember how common it was for 
the Legislatures of the free States to exert their 
ingenuity in legislating to defeat the purpose of 
the act of 1793 for the rendition of fugitives, re- 
fusing their prisons, and imposing penalties on 
their officers who undertook to execute the law, 
because they were not bound to do it by the Con 
stitution. 

I agree that, by law, they are not bound to 
provide for the restoration of any property in any 
case not embraced by the Constitution; but 1 
cannot agree that we have no other obligations 
than those enjoined on us by the Constitution or 
the statute law, and which can be specifically ex- 
ecuted by tin; process of a court. No; keeping 
within the letter of the Constitution will not 
justify hostile legislation by any State against 
sisti-r States or their citizens; keeping within the 
pale of the lav, furnishes no justification to indi- 
viduals or organized societies tor oflensive aggres- 
sion, nor exempts them from moral responsibility 
for the known consequences of their voluntary 
acts. 

Now, let me inquire how does it happen that 
the aid societies direct all their eilorts to the col- 
onization of Kansas? Ther(> are free States, and 
several Territories in which slavery is proliibited, 
to which emigrants who desire to live in a free 
State might go unarmed. Mr. Thayer, in the 
circular of February last, says that "the repeal 
of the Missouri compromise made Kansas the 
best field for the ojierations of the company;" 



20 



douljtli-.ss because it was the only debatable 
grouiRl. 

South of 3(P 30' is the cotton rejjion, where 
slave labor may be [jrofuably employed, and the 
tendency of emigration from the southern States 
is in that direction. Hence it is, that the States 
south of that parallel have been settled most gen- 
erally by slaveholders. There, soil and clfniate 
settle the (pustion. There is an inducement for 
them to go, and they go as readily as the emi- 
grants from any other portion of the Union; but 
in the latitude abovi! that and below 41° is the 
debatable ground. That is the latitude of middle 
States — Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky. The 
emigration from those States is small. Its tend- 
ency generally is southward; but few who emi- 
grate with slaves go directly west. The induce- 
ments in point of soil are only those portions 
which will produce hemp and tobacco. It was, 
therefore, possible that slaves might have been 
introduced into Kansas for that purjjose; but slave 
population was excluded from Nebraska by the 
climate, and therefore, Nebraska, the twin sister 
of Kansas, had no attractions for these emigrants 
from ]Sl-\v England; not a man of them wants to 
go there, because it serves no pur])ose in ex- 
cluding the southern people, who could not be 
induced to go there; but Kansas is the only spot 
left to them in which there is any climate and soil 
adapted to any culture in which slave labor can 
be profitably employed, and for that reason, it 
was the only field "for the operations" of the 
emigrant aid society. 

Is it not manifest, then, that these societies are 
political organizations, under the control of a 
sectional party, to effect, by associated capital, 
what they failed to accom|ilish by the legislation 
of Congress.' is it not a substitute for the law? 
Is it not intended to do the very thing which was 
attempted by the i'vlissouri prohibition — to exclude 
the southern people from the Territory.' It was 
not the necessary consequence of the Kansas act; 
but the organization and operations of the asso- 
ciation are defended on the ground that the act 
tempted these people to do things which are 
wrong in themselves; but being tempted, and 
yielding to the temptation, they become entirely 
justifiable and commendable ! I said yesterday, 
and now repeat, that I will not place the defense 
of my constituents on any such ground. 

Had the emigrant aid society forborne, Kansas 
would be more apt to be a free Stale than now. 
As I have said, the emigration from the States in 
the same latitude has a general tendency to the 
South; but the slaveholder emigrant moves 
slowly, and necessarily so. He has something 
to take care of, and to take with him; and there- 
fore, in any competition, according to the ordi- 
nary laws of emigration, he .would bo outdone. 
Those who need to be shipped off from the State 
to which they belong, by an organized, incorjjor- 
ated association, have little or nothing to carry 
with them, and can go easily. They therefore, 
in that latitude, would in all likelihood have fountl 
themselves largely in the majority, when they 
came to organize the government. A man who 
has slaves in the middle States, we all know, re- 
gards iheui as a part of his own family; attends 



to their comforts and moves with them, and takes 
care of them. This rerjuires time. Hehasprop- 
erty which he nmsl dispose of; and before any 
number of such emigrants could accomplish that, 
thousands of those who have little, or nothing at 
all, might have settled the Territory of Kansas, 
and made a free State, without extraordinary 
effort. I believed so at the time of the passage 
of the Nebraska act, and so I said to the Senator 
from Massachusetts, [Air. Everett,] because I 
thought the temptation was not strong enough, 
as the matter stood, to stimulate the people of the 
southern States into any extraordinary effort. 

When the first aid society was formed here in 
Washington — where all these political agitatifms 
originate — I often had occasion to converse with 
some honorable members of the other House who 
voted against the Kansas- Nebraska act, upon the 
subject of thht organization. I told them then 
that it would destroy their hope of making Kansas 
a free State, if anything could, for tlie language 
employed l)y the press in announcing the exist- 
ence and objects of the organization was calcu- 
lated to excite the people on the frontier. It was 
boasted' that they intended to accomplish by that 
organization what they had before tried to do by 
law, that they would accomplish it, and that 
before any number of the slaveholders could get- 
there they would have possession of the Territory. 
What was likely to be the effect of such declara- 
tions on the inhabitants of that froiuii'r? They 
had been held in check by a barbarian wall erected 
by this Government, arresting the progress of set- 
tlement and civilization westward. The emigra- 
tion, as all of us who have had any experience in 
the West know, crowds to the western boundary 
— to the furthest verge of the territory open to 
settleinint the pioneer class of populalitni will go. 
During the year before, when the Nebraska bill 
was pending in Consfress, letters from almost 
every quarter were addressed to mi^, as a citizen 
of Missouri supposed to know something about 
Kansas, making inquiries about the country; 
and when they were informed that in all like- 
lihood it would be opened to settlement, they 
rushed in that direction. The consequence was 
that, before the Territory was organizi'd, the whole 
frontier was thronged with persons anxious to 
settle in Kansas. They were not able to go into 
the Territory because the Indian intercourse laws 
prevented it. They planted themselves on the 
frontier; some of them rented a small piece ofland 
for temporary occupation; and at the time of the 
announcement of the passage of the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act, the line between Missouri and Kansas, 
I am informed, could be traced for miles by the 
fences. But these were not all slaveholders — 
they were people from Indiana, from Illinois, 
some from Connecticut, and almost every State 
in the Union, thronging that frontier waiting the 
opening of Kansas to settlement. When it was 
announced that a new appliance had l>een resorted 
to for the purpose of getting possession of the 
Territory, even those people who were them- 
selves, many of them, in principle opposed to 
slavery, became indignant, and afterwards cooper- 
ated with pro-slavery men. 

These movements in the North excited appro- 



21 



Kensions in the minda of the people of western 
Missouri for the security of their property, and 
certainly there was reason for it. I am not now 
upon the question, what did the society intend, 
but how were their resources, operations, and 
purposes represented by the press in their inter- 
est, and understood in Missouri? There were 
some in western Missouri who remembered how 
little their rights were respected by the North in 
the memorable strusrgle of 1820. (Some of them 
• — the descendants of Daniel Boone — are now re- 
siding- in Missouri, within six hundred yards of 
the Kansas boundar}'.) They believed that the 
movement was directed immediately against 
them, and I have no doubt they were greatly ex- 
asperated. No question that some of them were 
betrayed into violence of language, and, perhaps, 
irregularity of conduct. 

The apprehensions to which I have referred 
were not at al! allayed by the action of the Gov- 
ernor appointed for that Territory. He chose to 
remain at home until October, though he received 
his appointment on the 29t!i of June. In the mean 
time emigrants passed over, and some of them 
in no pleasant mood, in consequence of threats 
uttered against them. I have stated what tlie con- 
dition of that frontier was. As soon as it was 
known that Kansas was open, they rushed over. 
I think that was some time in the latter part of 
July or August. They went in dilTerent direc- 
tions, and made their "locations," as they call 
them; but they left crops on the Missouri side of 
the line, or in the States from which they had 
come, as stated by the honorable Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Douglas] the other day. Having 
made their locations, they worked as long as they 
could during that fall. They were at the election 
in November; and instead of its turning out to be, 
as the minority report represents, that a majority 
of the settlers in the Territory were, at that time, 
free-State men, there were but three hundred and 
twenty-seven of them out of upwards of two 
thousand voters, making an allowance for what 
Ihey aUege to have been Missouri votes. The 
number of votes cast were two thousand eight 
hundred and twenty three, of which there were — 
for John W. Whitfield, two thousand two hun- 
dred and fifty-eight, for J. A. Whitfield, two 
hundred and forty-eight, (which were probably 
intended for John W.,) and for all others, three 
hundred and twenty-seven. A vote of two thou- 
sand two hundred and fit'ty-eight against three 
hundr(?d and twenty-seven may be regai-ded as 
decisive of the question of which party had the 
majority there. 

Most of the emigrants were without houses or 
shelter for themselves or families in Kansas: some 
went over to Missouri, and others to their old 
homes in Illinois and Iowa, and other western 
States, to spend the winter. They were not all 
Missourians, or pro-slavery men, but settlers in 
Kansas intending to return with their families in 
the spring. During their al>scnce, Governor 
Reeder found it convenient in January to order a 
census to be takcn-in February, when he must 
have known that a large number, if not a ma- 
jority, of the voters could not he present. 

Yo'u reside in the West, Mr. President; you 



have a knov/ledge of the prairie country, and can 
estimate the ditTiculty of taking a census in the 
prairies in the month of January or F'ebruary, 
and you know how little those at a distance are 
likely to hear of it; but it was taken in the ab- 
sence of a large number of those who ought to 
have been enumerated, and the returns have 
figured largely in this debate. 

The time appointed for the election of membera 
of the Legislature was the 30th of March. The 
proclamation of the Governor giving notice of the 
election was issued on tiie Sth of that month. 
The first intelligence of the time appointed was 
received at St. Louis from New York or Boston, 
arid was transmitted thence to western Missouri. ' 
I have no charges to make, but there are some 
circumstances connected with the arrangements 
for the election that are not to be overlooked. 
Ordinarily, the navigation of the Missouri opens 
before the middle of March; of tlie Ohio, earlier- 
Emigrants generally prefer to travel by water — 
indeed, at that season they could not well do so 
by land. Now, the fall election exhibited a large 
majority of acknowledged legal voters against the 
free-State colonists. Itv/as necessary, therefore, 
to reinforce them, and the measures of the Gov- 
ernor seem to have been adapted to that end. The 
census was taken, and the election ordered, while 
most of the pro-slavery voters were absent; and 
it so happens that the emigrant aid society had 
notice of the election, and a very large number 
of their colonists were far on their way towards 
Kansas before it was known in western Missouri 
that the day of election had been appointed; but 
it did become known probably sooner than in- 
tended to the settlers who had wintered in Illinois, 
Indiana, and Missouri. They immediately ex- 
erted themselves to get to Kansas in time for the 
election. The consequenee was, that the boata 
ascending the Missouri were croM'dcd with emi- 
grants, not from Missouri, but most of them from 
States far east. I send to the Secretary, and ask 
him to read horn the report of the speech of Mr, 
Oliver, of the House of Representatives, who 
was a passenger on one of the boats, the state- 
ment which I have marked. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

"And here, sir, let iiic st;ite a fact wliicli fell U'itliin my 
own observation. I left St. Lmlis on flie lOtli or lltli of 
March in tliat year, and the !mat upon uhirli I went up tlie 
Missouri river was literally erowdi d with passenfjers, nearly 
all of wliorn I fonnd to be per.-ons iVoni the free Slates, and 
travelina lUider the l)atronaf.'e and allspices of the emigrant 
aid society. Many of their friuiks Wen; labeled, as I noticed, 
with cards having upon them the name of Thayer, the 
agent of the society at St. bonis. I conversed with many 
of those p(;rsons on 'the way up the rivt^r. I a.-kcd thcin 
where they Were f^oinj;. and the genera! reply was-, tf) Kan- 
sas. I spoke of its heinu (plite early for pniifTration, because 
it Was tiie monlii of March, and very inclement; tjiere fell 
a snow seven or eiaht inches in depth before I reached my 
home. I asked them why they had .started o((t so early in 
the sprin?, while the weallicr Was so Unpleasant .' The 
answer -{enerally was, that tbey desired to reach K.insas at 
the earliest prissihlc nioineut. and particularly to be there 
on the :il1tll day of March, for the |iin|)oso, as 'they said, of 
volin'4 for ineniliers of the 'J'erritorial IjCjislaturc. Nearly 
all of the boats that went up the Missouri river early that 
sprinc were crowilcd with passeni,'(-rs from the free States, 
traVeliii!; under the auspices of this einiiirant aid scciefy. 

" WvW, sir, the election took place on tin- •'inth of .March, 
1P.').">; and it i.s a well known fact, susceptible of the 
clearest proof, were it necu»'sary, that liiuulrcls of lln>se 



22 



einij;niiits, in less than one wfi'k aftor the elfclioii was 
oviT. Were t^cen rcliirninfr, as thoy said, to Uicir hoiiii's in 
till- Kast on stL-ainlioats and by land, sayitii: lh:it they liad 
fiilHIIod their obhu'aiions to those undc^r whosi^ auspices 
they hiid gone there ; that t!iey had seen thi; Territory ; that 
iney did not like th<' aiipearanee oC it ; and lliat tliey thouijht 
they couhl he nineh more liappy at their old lioines in tlio : 
East tliai\ in the Territory. In proof of the assertion that 
these eniisrants were mere adveniiirers, 1 [n;;: to stale the 
faet, that lliere were not more than ei^lit or ten females to , 
two or tlirie hundred males in tliat emigration, and that 
tlieir travi-liii!; eqnipaae.s consisted, in tint main, of hand- i 
sacks and small trunks. Some of them had pnns, ami ' 
liearly all of tlieni side-arms and other weapons of oli'onse I 
and defense." 

Mr. GEYER. Now, Mr. President, we ac- ! 
count for a small part of the increase of popula- [ 
tion; there were other aiiditions from the same | 
quarter. When they arrived in the upper part j 
of the river, it of course berame known tiiat they ' 
were g:oiug; into Kansas for the pur])ose of voting j 
at the eK;ction, and that they were not bona fide j 
emigrants; but, in addition to that, I liavi; it on 
good authority, tiiat intelligence was received on 
the Missouri side of the line, that those who had I 
wintered in that State would not be allowed to 
vote. 

You will remember that there had been organized 
what was called the Kansas legion, to which the 
attention of the Senate was called in the majority 
report, and in the speech of the Senator from Illi- 
nois, [Mr. Douglas.] That Kansas legion, it 
was understood, had determined to prevent those 
who were bona fide, emigrants, and who, com- 
pelled by the inekniency of the season , had sought 
shelter in Missouri during the winter, or at their 
homes in Indiana or Illinois, from voting. They 
resolved that they would vote, went into the Ter- 
ritory for that ))ur))0se, and I suppose did vote, 
as they lawfully might. There were others v.'ho 
went from Missouri, (not all Missourians, how- 
ever,) who were not entitled to vote, and did 
not intend to vote, unless others who entered 
Kansas about the same time, no better entitled, 
were allowed to do so. There was much excite- 
ment and great disorder in the neighborhood of 
the polls, and perha[is some illegal voting on 
both sides; but many who went from Missouri 
did not vote. I have it, on the authority of a 
gentleman v.'ho was at one of the precincts, that 
an entire comjiany, as it is called, never went to 
the polls at all; but watched another company 
from the East, and told them that, if Ihcy had a 
right to vote, those from Missouri had the same 
right, and would exercise it; and neither party 
voted. 

The minority report passes over the period 
froni the first settlement of tin; Territory down 
to ihe.election in 1855, on the 3(Jlh of March, and 
gives this account of it: 

" On the day of election, large hodics of armed men from 
the Slate of .Vlissonri appeared al the polls in most of the 
disiriels, and by most violent and tnmnllnous carrias^e and 
demeanor oviMawed the di'feiiseless inhabitants, atid by 
their own votes elected a lar-je majority of the members of 
both Houses of said Assembly.*' 

That is a sweeping allegation, and requires 
proof. We have the deelaralion of the honorable 
author of that report that there was no evidence 
before the committee of any sucii fact. They 
had no power, he said, to send fi>r persons and 
papers. Then why not ask for it.' Had it not 



been announced liere over and over again that 
there were, under the eaves of this Capitol and 
within its walls, the missionaries who hud been 
sent out by the chairman of the Kansas executive 
committee and committee of safety (so-called) 
on a mission of agitation in the States. They 
were about this Capitol, ready to be made v/it- 
nesses, and to receive their pay from the Treas- 
ury. Is it not most extraordinary that a report 
should be made involving the character of our 
citizens without a jiartiele of evidence .' It is very 
true, that afie-r the report was made there cairie 
the executive minutes from Kansas, which liave 
since been printed; but the author of the report 
had not even that to give color to the charge. 

The honorable Senator from Massachusetts 
made the charge first, and he read from General 
Pomeroy's memorial, giving an account of the 
election at the several precincts; and that was re- 
cognized and indorsed as conclusive proof by the 
honorableSenatorfrom Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull.] 
We have the unsworn testimony, then, of Gen- 
eral Pomeroy, who is the agent of the emigrant 
aid society, and one of those who are now on a 
mission of agitation. I do not question his verac- 
ity as to any fact he may state on his personal 
knowledge, but he must have told what is stated 
in that memorial on hearsay; for, with all his 
properties, he has not the power of ubiquity. He 
could not be at all the polls in Kansas, and testify 
of his own knowledge what occurred there; and 
I have a right to demand higher and more reliable 
evidence to support an accusation so gravely made 
in this high place. 

The honorable Senator from Iowa [Mr. Har- 
LAx] followed; and here 1 must beg leave to say 
that I heard with amazement a most extraordi-' 
nary declaration which I quote from his published 
speech. He said: 

" I do not propose to enter into a eencrnl review of all 
these facts; but thatlarjte bodies of nu-n Irom an adjoining 
State (firf enter Kansas for the avowed purpoes of controlling 
her elections, and by false swearing in some districts, and 
by intimidation and force in others, (with guns and knives, 
and revolvers, driving away tln»otficers of elections and free- 
State voters wlien necessary for that purpose,) did deposit 
votes in sullieient numbers to determine the character of lier 
lirst Legislature." 

"The war, the arson, the carnaje and bloodshed have 
been occasioned by a perseveriniieflort on the part of armed 
bands of men residing out of tin' Territory to cotnpcl the 
t>eoplc to ae(|niescc in tlie consummation of this hish-handeil 
ontragi' on their rights as freemen, is a part of llie history 
of the country wliieli no amount of learuins:, no itrcnglh of 
io^k. ami no fuc of eloijucncc can ever obliieralc.'' 

Anticipating an inquiry for his authority he 
says: 

" I respond by imiuiring for the niilhority of the world's 
conviction that honis Napoleon Wits clevat'd to the tlnone 
of his imperial uiule ' by loree ami Iraiiil.-" ■' 

It appears, then, in the opinion of that Senator, 
that because, under ordinary circumstances, we 
receive, and sometimes credit, intelligence of 
events in Europe upon the authority of public 
journals, newspaper articles are not only compe- 
tent evidence, but conclusive proof of a charge 
against an entire community offeree, fraud, and 
perjury ! 

Ijut the honorable Senator does not stop there. 
He says he has been in western Missouri, and 



23 



conversed with the people ; and they will not deny 
the leading facts stated; and " if these facts are 
doubted, or called in question by their friends on 
this floor, it will not be received by them as a com- 
pliment." Does he mean to say that they admit 
the perpetration of force, fraud, and perjury? 
Does he mean to say he has ever heard any man 
of any respectability in Missouri, or Iowa, assert 
that he has knowledge of the facts charged? Mr. 
President, the people of that country — as in every 
other new State I believe -— are excitable, but 
they are not prone to deeds of moral tui-pitude. 
Neither the people of Missouri nor Iowa can be 
tempted to the commission of perjury; they may 
be provoked to acts of violence, but not crimes 
involving moral turpitude. 

Mr. HARLAN. "Will the honorable Senator 
allow me to interrupt him ? 

Mr. GEYER. Certainly. 

Mr. HARLAN. Immediately preceding my 
arrival here, I conversed with citizens living in 
and around Council Blufls, in Iowa, and, among 
others, I remember, distinctly, conversing with 
Mr. Jollie, who represented himself as being one 
of the officers in Kansas at the time when this 
election is said to have taken place. He said that 
he himself administered the oath to numbei-s of 
persons whom he personally knew to be citizens 
of Missouri, who went so far as to swear that 
they were then residents of the Territory, and 
expected to live and die in the Territory. Yet 
they, then, to his certain personal knowledge, 
returned to Missouri before night. 

Mr. GEYER. Mr. President, if he adminis- 
tered any such oath it was not under any law of 
Kansas. Persons were not called upon to swear 
"that they expected to hve and die in Kansas." 
But if the fact be that tiiey swore that they were 
residents of Kansas, does it follow that they 
committed perjury ? Did nobody vote who went 
there at the same time from other quarters as 
residents ? Is the fact, that they went back to 
Missouri, even if they had ever been residents 
there, evidence that they committed perjury, 
when they said that their residence was then in 
Kansas? As I have said, the fact is known — it 
cannot be successfully contradicted — that many 
went from Kansas and wintered in Missouri, and 
in other States, and well they might. They had 
no shelter in Kansas to j)rotect them from tiie 
storms of winter. It was the policy of the Gov- 
ernor to order the election at an inclement season 
of the year. Some of the emigrant aid voters 
went to Missouri to stay during the winter. The 
fact that a man crossed the line for shelter after 
the election was over is no proof of perjury. I 
did hope that the charge would be recanted; I did 
suppose that, as a Christian gentleman, the hon- 
orable Senator from Iowa would retract the 
charge, but he adheres to it. Who is Mr. Jollie 
who invented and administered the oath? Where 
is he ? What is he, that an honorable Senator 
ventures on his authority to make so grave a 
charge against his countrymen and neighbors ? 
Mr. President, the deceptions that have been 

Practiced in regard to this subject are enormous, 
ince this debate was commenced, I saw an article 
in a newspaper, which I cut out, and intended to 



make use of, wherein a citizen of Iowa, (as lie 
said he was, but a most unfortunate and greatly 
injured pro-slavery man, according to the account 
given by himself,) said that he had a house and a 
piece of land near Topeka, and that the Abolition- 
ists from Topeka turned him and his family out 
of the house, tore it down, and stole the logs. 
[Laughter.] When I first saw it, I thought I 
could make something out of that; but I took the 
precaution, first, to inquire of persons who have 
been on the ground, and who knew the men, and 
then I believe I ascertained the true state of facts. 
I found that this very man was himself an Abo- 
litionist, that he went into partnership with a 
brother Abolitionist, that they built their house 
together, that he got his family into it, occupied 
it, and would not let the other come in. He 
kept within " tho pale of the law." There 
was no process by which he could be expelled; 
there was no law by which he could be punished. 
Then his brother Abolitionists of Topeka went 
out to the spot, turned him out, and took posses- 
sion of the logs, and gave them to the other part- 
ner in the concern. 

This shows how unreliable are newspaper 
articles as evidences of occurrences in Kansas. 
Some time since a proclamation was issued by 
the President in consequence of dispatches re- 
ceived by him from J. H. Lane, (chairman of 
the executive committee,) now claiming to be a 
Senator, and C. Robinson, (chairman of the 
committee of safety,) now claiming to be Gov- 
ernor of Kansas, informing the President that 
"an overwhelming force was organized upon the 
border for the avowed purpose of invading Kan- 
sas, and butchering the unoffending free-State 
citizens." It happened that, on the very day the 
Senator from Massachusetts was delivering his 
speech, the Pioneer Association of. lackson county 
assembled at Independence to adopt a constitu- 
tion. They had been informed of the proclama- 
tion, and of the information upon which it was 
issued, but had not learned by whom furnished. 
The Senator from Massachusetts had said that 
the proclamation would be received with joy by 
the people of western Missouri, because it was 
aimed at those innocent individuals, Robinson, 
Lane, and their associates. A mass meeting was 
immediately held at Independence, and it was 
resolved (I have the resolutions before me) that 
the information of a contemplated invasion from 
Missouri, by whomsoever communicated, was 
untrue; that there was no organization for such 
purpose existing or contemplated. The persons 
whose names appear in the proceedings, as W( 11 as 
the officers who signed them, are men who have 
position in society. I have the proceedings of 
another mass meeting held at Lexington, Mis- 
souri, at which an address to the President and 
people was adopted, in which the dispatch of 
those two high functionaries of Kansas is quoted 
and pronoum-( d an umnitigate'd falsehood. The 
meeting declares that west ofJeilerson there is 
but one piece of artillery, (not in the national 
depot of arms,) and that piece is one of those 
captured by Colonel Donijihan's regiment, and 
was presented by the State of Missouri as a com- 
pliment to the Jackson county company. All the 



24 



artillery captured by Cnlonol Doniphan's rngi- 
inriit, It will bt' rcmrnibcrfd, wan ri'linqnislied 
by the General Goveriniieiit to the State of Mis- 
souri. 

Here, then, wo have more cviilcnfc of the 
questionable character of information furnished 
by the free-State men of Kansas. 

Sir, I liave accounted for tlie larg:c accession of 
)>o|nihition in March, ]S.")a. It was composed of 
people who l)elony;ed to Kansas, and had wintered 
m Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. They 
came back earlier than they otherwise would have 
done in consequence of t)ic order of an election 
at tliat extraordinary season. Some of tliem were 
oblijred to go Ijack to the State of Missouri after 
the election, and seek tlio hospitality of the people 
of tliat State; so that there is nothing in the fact 
of their going over, or com ing back, to justify the al- 
legation that they were not legal voterins Kansas. 

The Governor approved of the election of ten 
councihnen and sixteen rc])resentalives. He re- 
jected nearly all the votes in one district, and 
returned a Mr. Conway, and a Mr. McCarty, of 
whose existence the Governor had serious doubts. 
He rejected tvro councijmen and nine represent- 
ativi^s. A new election was ordered to be liehl 
in May. The Governor left the Territory on the 
ITih of AjM-il to visit his family, and did not re- 
turn until about the 23d of June. During liis 
absence he appears to liave discovered, for the 
first time, that there had been any serious dis- 
turbance in Kansas. In a speech, delivered at 
Easton, Pennsylvania, lie said, " It was too true 
that Kansas had been invaded, conquered, sub- 
jugated, by armed forces from beyond the bor- 
ders." It is somewhat remarkable that the Gov- 
ernor made this discovery of imjiortant events 
in Kansas at a distance of a thousand miles from 
his post, about the time that he discovered, also, 
that the President had received information of 
his interest in the Pawnee speculation, and he 
perceived at once wluit was to be his fii^te. 

The President' was charged by the Senator 
from New Hamjishire [Mr. Hai.e] witli gross 
111 glretof duty because lie did not instantly, upon 
tile jHiblication of Governor Reeder's sperch, in- 
terfere by sending an armed force into Kansas. 
liUt, as the Governor liad never made an official 1 
Ji'port of facts stated in the speech, the President ! 
might be supposed to understand his duty better ' 
than to interfere upon the authority aiimc of ] 
Governor Reeder's .^jieech, if he ever read it. ; 

It is a significant fact, tliat Governor Reedcr j 
would not lake the responsibility of re])orting to 
the President, on liis official oath, what he stated [ 
in his speech, or anything like it. Ho either t 
betrayed liis trust, or his statement at Easton is t 
untrue. If he was faithful to his duty and the 1 
ol)ligationof his ofHcialoath, her(»ported officially j 
all invasions of Kansas during his administra- 
tion. But I infer that he obtained his informa- ! 
tion of till- invasion of which he sneaks from the j 
source which furnishes an abundant supply of 
similar information located in New York and j 
Boston. I 

The jiowcr of the Governor is unquestioned ' 
to regulate the first election, and to declare duly I 
elected the person.-} having the highest number' 



of legal votes. He did adopt regulations for the 
election; he published them, and they were for 
Kansas the law, under the authority of the or- 
ganic act, and the election was decided in pur- 
suance of it. Yet we are told, by the honorable 
SeMiator from Vermont and others, tiiat the peo- 
ple of Kansas are not bound by it. What, sir! 
Have the people of Kansas an appeal on the 
question of the legality of an election — to hold a 
controversy with arms in their hands to settle the 
election and returns of members of their General 
Assembly? It was the act of the constituted 
authority of Kansas, binding upon the people of 
Kansas, when tliose certificates were granted. It 
was decided according to law, and under the 
authority of law, and just as obligatory as if it 
: had been decided by Congress. 

I shall not enter at large into 'the controversy 
about the power of each branch of the Legisla- 
ture to judge of the election and returns of its 
members. It is enough to say that, at the; election 
ordered by Governor Reeder, two members of 
the Council, and six of the House of Reprosenta- 
I lives, were elected in place of those rejected by 
I him. The other three were the same who had 
l)een elected, and took their seats in the General 
Assembly, as having been elected at both elections 
This left undisputed ten councilmen and nineteen 
representatives, with the undoubted authority 
as a Legislature; and if anybody had a right 
to judge of the elections and returns, under the 
certificate of the Governor, it was in them. But 
suppose it to be a doubtful question: is it to be 
settled by an appeal to mob law ? Neither the 
regularity of the election, the sufficiency of the 
returns, or the qualifications of memliers, is an 
open question in determining the validity of a 
law enacted by them, in any tribunal. And are 
men to turn out and resist the execution of laws, 
because they suppose that they were passed by 
the votes of members who arc disqualified, were 
elected by illegal votes, or obtaini'd their seats by 
force, or fraud .•' Suppose we should pass a bill 
in the Senate, by a majority of one, and that vote 
given by the honoraljle Senator from Illinois, 
[Mr. TiuiMnuLi.,] whose seat has been contested. 
There is a Senator near nii- who believes he was 
not entitled to a seat. Now, if the bill supposed, 
is passed by the other House and approved by 
the President, its validity cannot be made to de- 
pend ujion tli(- validity of the election of the 
Senator from Illinois; yet the question would be 
open in that case, as much as it the bill had lieen 
carried by the votes of any number of members 
where seats were contested; and if individuals 
and mass meetings may decide that question, 
their right to resist the law would not depend 
upon the correctness of the decision. If resist- 
ance to a law is justifiable, where it is passed by 
the vote of any number of members of the Legis- 
lature who are not entitled to their scats, and if 
those who resist arc the judges of the validity of 
the elections, they are justified, whether they 
decide right or wrong. 

The atiemiit at revolution in Kansas is at- 
tempted to be justified, or excused, because there 
have been some laws passed by the Legislature 
alleged to be of a very objectionaljle character. 



23 



The honorable Senator from Vermont quotes 
on€ of these acts, and complains against it because, 
as he says, it assumes that slavery exists bylaw, 
when it did not. Whether it does or not, how- 
ever, is a gTave question of constitutional law. 
If I am -right in the opinion that the Missouri 
prohibition was unconstitutional, slavery does 
exist in Kansas — a question whicli is not to be 
referred to mass meetings or Topeka conven- 
tions. Besides, the law referred to is itsrlf a 
recognition of slavery, and that is all-sufficient. 
The laws of Virginia and other slave States do 
no more. Gentlemen say that slavery cannot 
exist anywhere except by authority of law. 
Agreed: Ijut there never was a law in any of the 
States tolerating slavery, to authorize any per- 
son to reduce another to slavery. All that there 
is in the legislation on the subject is to be found 
in acts recognizing the authority of the owner 
and securing to him the jiossession of the slave 
as property. Slavery exists by law wherever the 
law recognizes its existence. 

I have before me some curiosities in legislation, 
which it would be well enough for gentlemen 
who are disposed to indulge in severe criticism 
of the laws of Kansas, to find an apology for re- 
bellion, to look at. The first act to which I will 
call their attention is that of Vermont.* The 
marginal note of the third section is in these 
words: 

"Two justices empowered to examine strangers on com- 
plaint of overseers of poor." 

It appears in the body of the section that, if the 
result of the examination is not satisfactory, the 
constable of the town is to transport such stranger 
out of it; and further, by another section: 

" If any person so removed shall return, to reside within 
the town, without permission of the selectmen, he or she 
shall be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, at tlie discre- 
tion of the justice before wlioni the trial shall be had." 

Mr. BUTLER. Does that apply to white 
people .'' 

Mr. GEYER. Yes, sir; white or black, if they 
are strangers; [iaugiiter;] that is to say, if a citi- 
zen of any other State, white or black, male or 
female, should under that law, go into Vermont, 
they were liable to be ordered out of it by the 
overseer of the poor; and if they came back after 
being ordered out, they were liable to be whip[)cd 
on their return. But Vermont is not singular. 

Mr. BUTLER. I wish my friend would in- 
corporate into his speech an old law of Massa- 
chusetts, which i have found. 1 would remind 
my friend of an old. league between the four New 
England States, made while they were colonies, 
expressly repudiating trial by jury for the recla- 
mation of fugitive slaves. They called them 
"slaves" too, or rather "fugitive servants," and 
they say that they sliall be delivered upon the 
certificate of one magistrate. f 

Mr. GEYER. I am not objecting to these laws. 
They are jK)licc laws, and I leave the people of 
those State.s to interpret them; but while we are 
looking for curio.sities of legislation, gentlemen 
may as well look at home. Here is another from 
the State of New York: 

* Laws of Vermont, 1808, vol. 1, pp. 3.64 and 403. 
t See Appendix, No. 6 . 



" Any householder entertaining a stranger for fifteen days 
without giving notice, to forfeit five dollars. [Laushter.] 
If the justices think proper, they may cause the strangerto 
be removed out of the town." 

And by another section it is provided that per- 
sons removed and returning, shall be retrans- 
ported and may be whipped; " if a man, not ex- 
ceeding thirty-nine lashes, and if a woman, not 
exceeding twenty-five lashes; and so as often as 
such person shall return after such transporta- 
tion."* [Laughter.] Such is the entertainment 
provided for strangers according to the law of 
New York. 

I have before referred to one specimen of legis- 
lation in Massachusetts. I now turn to the last 
efltbrt of the Legislature, to fulfill the obligation 
of that State, vinder the Constitution, to return 
fugitive slaves. 

By the personal liberty bill, so called, passed 
in 1855, fugitive slaves arrested may be admitted 
to bail on habeas corpus, and are entitled to a trial 
by jury. The claimant is required to state, in 
writing, the facts on which he relies with " pre- 
cision and certainty." 

" And no confessions, admissions, or declarations, of the 
alleged fuuitivi' a^'aiiist liiinsclf, slinll be given in evidence. 
Upon every (|urstinii ni'fiirt iiivulved in the i.Jsue, the bur- 
den of proof sliiill lit- on tin- cbiiiiiant, and the facts alleged 
and necessary to be estalilislu'd must be proved by the tes- 
timony of at least two ereililjle witni sses, or other legal 
evidence equivalent thereto, and by the rules of evidence 
known and secured by the common law ; and no ex parte 
deposition or affidavit sliall be received in proof in behalf 
of the claunant, and no presumption shall arise in favor of 
the claimant from any proof that the alleged fugitive or any 
of his ancestors had been actually held as a slave, without 
proof that such holding was legal." 

The obvious design of this act is to defeat the 
execution of the fugitive slave law. It not only 
undertakes to establish rules of pleading and evi- 
dence, but substantially provides that no proof 
possible shall be available to the claimant, byre- 
quiring proof that the alleged fugitive was lawfully 
held to slavery according to the law of Massa- 
chusetts; that is the obvious intention of the last 
clause of the part I have quoted. 

The next section provides thatany person who 
shall remove, or attempt to remove, any jjcrson 
"who is not 'held to service or labor' by the 
' party' making 'claim,' or who has not 'escaped' 
from the 'party' making ' claim,' or whose 'ser- 
vice or labor ' is not ' due' to the ' party' making 
'claim ' within the meaning of those words in the 
Constitution of the United States, on the pretense 
that such person is so held, or has so escaped, or 
that his ' service or labor ' is so ' due,' or with 
the intent to subject him to such 'service or 
labor,' he shall be punished by a fine not less 
than one thousand nor more than five thousand 
dollars, and by imprisonment in the Sti>te prison 
not less than one nor more than five years, "f 

You will observe, Mr. President, that there are 
frequent ([notations of words and phrases from 
the Constitution, and marked as such. The Con- 
stitution provides that — 

" No person held to service or labor in one State, under 
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse- 
quence of any law orregidation therein, be discharged from 
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of 
the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

* Laws of New York, edition 1802, pp. 5GS-9. 
t t-ee .\|)i)endix, No. G. 



26 



Tlic clause of tlic Massachusutls act last quoted 
is n manifest attempt to keep within the letter, 
and at the same time defeat the intent of the 
Cunstitutioii and of the act of Conj^ress passed in 
pursuance of it. Evc^ry person who attempts to 
arrest a fujrilivc, or assist another, must be pre- 
jiared at all times to prove that tlio claimant is 
the owner, and that the escape was from him, and 
not from his bailee or ajeiit, at the' hazard of beino; 
punished as a felon, and under the ei2;hth section 
paying heavy damages to the fugitive, to be recov- 
ert'd in a civil action. 

By the same act all officers of the State are 
proliibited, under heavy penalties, from issuing 
process in fugitive slave cases, or assisting in the 
arrest of a fngiiive. Any person acting as counsel 
or attorney for any claimant of an alleged fugitive 
undf'r the act of Congress, is to be disqualified 
and prohibited from practicing in any court of the 
State. 

This legislation, so obviously designed, so cun- 
ningly contrived to defeat a compromise of the 
Constitution, is approved and sustained by Sen- : 
aiors who are most loud in their complaints of 
the disregard of a legislative compromise by the 
con.stitutional repeal of an act of Congress, and 
who are now more consistently employed in justi- 
fying rebellion in Kansas on the ground that bad [ 
laws were enacted by the Legislature. ] 

Now, Mr. Posident, I turn to the proceedings 
which resulted in a convention to form a consti- 
tution and Slate government for Kansas. While 
the Legislature was yet in session, measures were 
adopted to call meetings with a view to organiza-j 
tion. Governor Robinson, in his late message, 
says that the first movement was in July. The 
first meeting was held at Lawrence, where it was 
ri'solved to hold a convention to consider and 
determine upon all subjects of public interest, and 
especially the speedy formation of a State con- 
stitution. The reason is stated in a preamble to 
be that the Territory always had been, and then 
was, without any law-making jmwer. I 

On the 5th of September, the Big Springs con-! 
volition was held, and adopted resolutions con- 
fessedh' insurrectionary, nominated Governor 
Reeder as the candidate for Delegate to Congress, 
and fixed the day of election after that appointed 
by law. The first Topcdta convention was held 
on the 19tli and 20th of Septembi-r, and resolved 
to liold another convention, to be chosen on the 
Second Tuesday of October, (the same day ap- 
pointrd for the election of Delegate by the Big 
Springsconvention.) The convention thus called, 
Mas chosen, and assembled at Topeka on the 
fourth Tuesday of October, and formed what is 
called a State constitution. 

It has beim conceded here, by the honorable 
Senator from Vermont, that, if tlie organization 
of the Kansas legion and the Big Springsconven- 
tion have any connection with the meeting at 
Lawrence, or the conventions at Topeka, their 
proceedings furnish evidence of a design to dis- 
place tin; existing government, set up a new one, 
and maintain it by force of arms if necessary; 
but he argues that neither the Kansas legion nor 
the Big Springs couviMition is in any way con- 
nected with the proceedings ill the other meetings 



and conventions, and therefore he took no notice 
of them in the minority report. 

The question has been very fully discussed by 
the Senator from Blinois, and I think he has 
shown very clearly, by reference to the proceed- 
ings at the several meetings and conventions, that 
they are connected together in a direct line, all 
having the same end in view. I propose only to 
invite the attention of the Senator from Vermont 
to a few facts, not unworthy of consideration, 
which he apj^eurs to have overlooked, and which 
tend to sustain the view of the subject taken by 
the Senator from Illinois. 

By reference to the published documents it will 
be seen that the grand vice general of the Kansas 
legion organized the meeting at Lawrence, of 
which the grand quartermaster gen(!ral of the same 
legion was secretary, and both these grand offi- 
cers were members of both the conventions at 
Topeka. Colonel Warren was a member of the 
Big Springs convention. How many more of 
the members of that organization were active in 
the proceedings of the assemblages mentioned 
cannot be a.scertained now, as their names have 
not been disclosed. The president of the consti- 
tutional convention, the assistant secretary, and 
fifteen or sixteen of the thirty-six members who 
signed the constitution, were members of the Big 
Springs convention. Several of these, and others 
of their associates at Big Springs, were in the first 
Topeka convention, which recognized its proceed- 
ings, and appointed the same day for holding the 
elections. The election for Delegate to Congress, 
and for the members of the constitutional con- 
vention, was held on the sanii- day, conducted 
under the superintendence of the same persons, 
and Reeder, the nominee of the Big Springs con- 
vention, and the members of the constitutional 
convention , one half of whom were his associates 
at Big Springs, were elected by the same people; 
and Robinson, Governor elect, also a member of 
the last convention, recognizes the proceedings at 
Big Springs, and quotes a part of them in his 
message. 

The whole proceedings, from })eginning to end, 
show that the same spirit animated all the assem- 
blages in succession; though that at Big Springa 
was more indiscreet than the others in disclosing 
the ]>urpose to resist the laws to a bloody issue 
if they did not obtain a peaceful remedy by an 
appeal to the judiciary or Congress. 

The fad that one half of the constitutional con- 
vention, or near it, was composed of members 
of tlie Big Springs convention — that Guvernor 
Reeder, who was present at that couveniion and 
participated in its proceedings, was their nominee 
for Delegate — that the first Topeka convention 
recognized their proceedings, in connection with 
those lirought to the notice of the Senate by 
the honorable Senator from Illinois, ought to be 
regarded as conclusive against the position of the 
Senator from Vi;rmont. 

I find that, of the signers of the memorial pur- 
porting to be that oC bona fide residents of Leaven- 
worth county, Kansas Territory, praying the 
admission of Kansas into the Union, the first is 
James Redpath, who is the persnii, I jiresume, 
that signed the constitution as " reporter." He 



27 



was, I am credibly informed, a member of tin; 
late Republican convention at Pittshur», claiming 
to be a delefi^atc from the State of Missouri. I 
believe that he is a i-eporter sure enough, and, as 
1 am informed, of some paper in the habit of pub- 
lishing " roorbacks" as news from Kansas. 

But the Senator from Vermont does not appear 
to be entirely satisfied that the meetings and 
conventions which he recognizes were peaceable 
assemblies, to petition for the redress of griev- 
ances. He takes some pains, both in the minority 
report and in his speech, to set forth and prove 
that grievances existed which justify revolution. 

The first Topeka convention understood them- 
selves to be engaged in a revolutionary movement, 
and they set forth a formidable number of griev- 
ances to justify it. Peaceable assemblies to peti- 
tion for redress need no such manifesto as that 
issued at Topeka, and no such defense as has 
been made for the assemblies in Kansas. 

The Kansas legion is a military organization, 
and that it was prepared for active service, was 
made manifest in the Wakarusa war. It was a 
party of armed men of that legion who forcibly 
rescued a prisoner from the lawful custody of the 
sheriiF, swearing that they recognized no law, and 
relied only on tlieir rifles; and when the Governor 
called the militia to enforce the laws, a large body 
of m'^n armed with Sharpe's rifles was promptly 
embodied and ready for resistance, at Lawrence, 
and maint:Tined their attitude of hostility until 
Governor Shannon, becoming apprehensive of a 
serious collision between the men assembled by 
his authority to execute the laws, and the men 
in arms to oppose them went to Lawrence and 
there entered into an engagement by which peace 
was restored. 

Mr. President, the convention at the Big Springs 
recommended thinr friends to " organize and dis- 
cipline volunteer companies, and the procure- 
ment and preparation of arms;" and thus far we 
have seen that their recommendation has been 
attended to. We know that military corps have 
been organized, and supplies of arms and muni- 
tions of war have been provided; we know that 
the chairmen of the executive committei' and 
committees of safely have appointed missionaries 
of agitation, and sent them into the free States 
to recruit men and procure arms and munitions 
of war; we know that a shipment of arms has 
recently been made to Kansas. And now 1 will 
mention a few fads, indicating the determination 
of l!ie friends of the movement in Kansas, in the 
free States, to carry out the recommendation of 
the Big Springs convention, and cocipertitc with 
them to the full extent proposed. 

At the Repuliliean convention recently held at 
Pittsburg, Mr. Mann (and alluding no doubt to 
the proclamation of the President) said: 

"'n)o tirst drop of huiiian blood shod in Kansas hy thi; 
ajithority of the United States will be tlu; end of slavery, 
not only in tliis country but upon the globe." 

Yes, sir, insurrection or no insurrection; even 
if armed insurgents are openly n-sisting the au- 
thority of the law, and it becomes necessary 
to .subdue them by arms, it is said that the first 
Federal gun that shall be fired in Kansas, in the 
execution of the laws, shall be the death of 



slavery everywhere. They have the means, they 
think. 

Mr. BELL, of Tennessee. Who said that? 

Mr. GEYER. Mr. Mann, at the convention 
at Pittshurij. 

Mr. SEWARD. Abijah Mann, of New York. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN'. It has been said here, 
I think. 

Mr. SEWARD. I have not heard it said here. 

Mr. GEYER. Here is something which is, I 
believe, of a later date. A large meeting was 
held at Worcester, Massachusetts, at whicli Gen- 
eral Pomeroy, the agent, and Mr. Thayer, the 
secretary, of the Massachusetts or New England 
Emigrant Aid Society, were present, and ad- 
dressed the people; the report of the proceedings 
was publish(;d in the Worcester Spy, of Satur- 
day, 9th February, the concluding j)art of which 
I will read: 

"Mr. Pojiieroy's remarks were reeeivnd with many 
demonstrations of.applanse, and at their conchi-^ion a col- 
lection was tak(.'n up in aid of Kansas; abont fifty dollars 
were contributed in cash, and written pledges given to the 
amount of .l^l.'iO more, which is only a beginning of what 
Worcester will and can do for the cause. 

" At the close of Mr. P()meroy's address, the president 
called upon Eli Thayer, Esq., to address the meeting, and 
Mr. T. responded in eloquent terms. He said he was a 
peace man, and his oft'er to furnish a thousand superior 
rifles, (Mr. Thayer is engaged in the maiinfaeture of a 
newly invented ritle, said to be far superior to Sharpe's,) was 
based upon an earnest and sincere desire to pri^ent the 
shedding of blood. A. large number of men were engaged 
in their manufacture in this city, and a portion of them 
would be completed in the coming week, but as it was de- 
sirable that some additional armssliould be sent to the Ter- 
ritory at once, he proposed to pay for ten Sharpe's rifles at 
twenty-five dollars each, on condition that, during the com- 
ing week, other citizens of Worcester would subscribe 
enough to make up the number to one hundred rifles. 

" Several gentlemen subscribed for a rifle, and sent their 
names to llie chair; and before the audience left the hall, 
twenty-three rifles, equivalent to the sum of i^5~'i, were 
subscribed for. Hfr. Thayer's generous proposal was re- 
ceived with great ap[il luse, and a committee of three was 
appointed to solicit subscriptions for the requisite number. . 
Of course they will find no difficulty in securing the mate- 
rial aid necessary." 

Here, then, we find the agent in Kansas, and 
the secretary, both actively engaged in " the pro- 
curement and preparation of arms," as recom- 
mended by the Big Springs convention, and it 
seems thai the secretary is himself engaged in 
the manufacture of " facilities" " superior to 
Sharpe's." 

It appears that the missionaries have stirred up 
the people of Chicago, the city of the residence of 
the honorable cliairman of the Committee on 
Territories, to activity in furnishing material aid 
in the same cause. In the Kansas Herald of 
Freedom, of a late date, I find, what I will now 
read, under the head "A Noble Letter: " 

" The editor of the Chicago Tribune writes us from that 
city, under date of February 15th, from which we make the 
following extract: 

"' Chicago, Fehruanj 1.3, 1852. 

" ' Editor Hf.rai.d or Frrkdom : There is about two 
thousand dollars subscribed to help the free-Slate cause, 
which is placed in the hands of an executive committee, to 
bi! checked on by your conuniltee of public safety, and other 
proper persons, not to purchase scrip, but to pay for muni- 
tions, necessaries, &c., for the as.-istance of the free-State 
cause. We shall raise considerable more means, and when 
the spring opens you may look for a large number of emi- 
grants, who will h indle an ax or Sharpe's rifle, as the 
occasion may require. 



28 



" 'The wliolo western Slates are prolbundly moved with 
in<lisii:ilion at the wroii'is yinir pioplr have su staiiii d. As 
Eistaiicc will pour ill next spriji^ iji !il)uii(laii(<'. ''I'lioiifih 
the heavens Tailor tln' Union he rent in twain, Kansas 
shall not he cursed witli slavery,' is the voiee of the North. 
Be of pood cheer, anil prove; liiithlnl to the end. Your re- 
ward will surely come. Several ofyour people are with us, 
poin;; Iroui town to city as niissi(uiaries in a holy cause. 
They an: doins great good. 

" ''I'he l{<'|)nlilie.iiis have secured the oraaiiizalion ofthe 
House at Washinulon. Good will come oi' it. 

" ' Very truly yours, KI>S. TIU UUNi:.' " 

I liave before me, also, some elei^ant cxtnicts 
from the New York Tribune, and will read a part 
' of a one, as a specimen: 

" The people of Kansas, and the friends of freedom for 
Kansas, must conthtuc to do what they have liceii doiuf; ever 
sinec tlie pasna^eof the Kansas- Nebraska MIL Conforinin!i 
to the principU; oi' squatter sovereignty, on wliieli thai hill 
assumes to found itself, Ihcy must pour free settlers into 
Kansas, well armed with, Sharpens rijUs, or other convenient 
weapons." 

It then proceeds to appeal to yoinio; men of 
ardor and enthusiasm, and calls upon ihern to go to 
Kansas, and take part in the impending; strui::glo 
for the sake of "glory and a quarter section." Thus 
we find the appeal of the insurgent convention to 
their friends to raise and organize troops, and pro- 
cure and prepare aj-ms, recognized and nsponded 
to, with a view to the contemplated issue. 

Mr. President, the measures have b(!en taken 
which are necessary to keep the peace in Kansas. 
If no violence is designed by either party, no one 
has a right to complain of those measures. If 
violence is designed, it is the duty of the Presi- 
dent to maintain a force there, which shall keep 
them in check. This, 1 apprehend, is all that need 
be done. Tlu- laws are equal to the preservation 
of peace in that Territory. 

But, sir, they demand admission into the Union, 
either now or at some distant day to be fixed by 
Congress. I will say now that I have no objec- 
tion to the passage of a general law )irescribing 
the tirms on which new Slates formed out of the 
Territories may bo admitted into the Union; but 
I am altogether disinclined to yield to demands, 
accompanied by threats, from revolutionists in 
Kansas. Nor am I disposed to allow them to 
occupy the immense territory which ihey claim 
as a State, and to come into the Union, with a 
population of less than twenty-five thousand, 
according to their own representation, on an 
equality with any State having one Rcprosentativ<; 
in the otlur House. I cannot consent to it. To 
agree to that course is to settle the question by 
Congress yielding to the demands set up by an 
insurrectionary organization under the influence 
of llie emigrant aid association. It is to sur- 
render at once to that unquiet spirit of aggression 
which for more than forty years has warred upon 
the institutions of one half of the States of this 
Union; has sought to exclude their citizens from 
the common territory of the nation, and to annul 
even the compromises of the Consiituiion, which 
promise protection for their property, and secure 
10 tiiem a portion of their jiolitical power. lam 
unwilling to yield to that spirit. I donotapprc- 
hend any serious trouble. 

I said, yesterday, that whenever agitators have 
succeeded in disturbing the peace of the country 
to an extent to create serious apprehensions of 



danger, the great body of the people have proved 
them.selves loyal to the Union; and I believe that, 
if the present agitation is continued, the pi.-opliMjf 
this country will again rebuke the fomenters of 
discord, and maintain (he supremacy of the Con- 
stitution and the laws. 

I have spoken of the action of parties; but I 
desire it to be undi'isiood that, when I speak of 
the present organizations, I wish to distinguish 
conservative men, who act with the associa- 
tion called Republican, from the two wings of 
that party known as Ai)olitionists. I condemn 
no man for voting against the passage of the 
Kansas-Neln-aska act. There are ditferences of 
opinion on that sui)ject. There were such differ- 
ences among conservative men at the time of its 
[)assage among the members of the House of Rep- 
resentatives: many of those who voted against 
the bill afterwards shared the fate of others who 
voted for it, because they were conservative. Hy 
the union of Abolitionists with a new organiza- 
tion called Know Nothings, every conservative 
member from Massachusetts was immolati'd 
The same thing occurred in other States. What 
I mean to say to honorable gentlemen of the 
Republican party, who are not Abolitionists, is 
tliis — if they do not wish to be made responsible 
for the action of their associates, let them at once 
dissolve the connection, and seek a healthy organ- 
ization which shall be national in its character, 
and manifest their fidelity to the Uni<*n by ri^Uy- 
ing to the support of the laws and the Constitu- 
tion. 



APPENDIX. 

[Xo. 1.] 
HorsK OF RErRESF.NTATivEs, Fchrunry 18, 1819. 
The hill estuhlishing a Territorial Government for Ark- 
ansas. 

Mr. Tayi.or, of New York, moved to insert a section pro- 
vidiiip that neither slavery nor iiivolnntary servitude shall 
he introduced into the said Territory, olherwise than fortlie 
punishment of crimes, whereof the parly shall have Iwi-ii 
duly convicted ; and all children horn of slaves within said 
Territory shall he free, hut may he held to service until the 
af;e of twenty-five years. 

The question was divided, and put on the ttrst part of the 
clause down to the word '• couvieled,'" inclusive, and da- 
eided in the neiativo— 70 to 71; Uie second clause was 
agreed to — 75 to 73. 

Frid.kV, February VJ.-rOn a motion to commit the hill, 
with instructions to strike out the second clause of the 
amenilmcnt, and on the qui stiou there were — yeas 8«<, 
nays 68. 

The question was decided in the affirmative hy the vote 
of the Speaker. The votes of the free States were as fol- 
lows : 

Yens. Nays. Veis. Nays, 

Xew Hamii=liire.... 1 4 New Jersey 4 

Vermont .'> I'ennsvlvania 1 22 

Massachusetts.... 4 1.) dhio 3 3 

Uhode Island 2 Indiana 1 

('onnecti<'Ui 7 llliiini- 1 

New York 3 24 — — 

Total 1.) So 

Delaware voted, ay 1, no 1 ; all the votes of the other 
States were in the alJirmative. 

'J'he committee reported hack the bill amended ai^reeably 
to the instructions; anil the c]iiestion hciii:; taken to concur 
with the select committee, it passed in tli'' allininlive. The 
free States voted as hcfore, except that Massachusetts gave 
one less ui the negative. 



29 



Mr. Tati.or, of N(!W York, llioii moved to amend by | 
inserting the first clause of the foriiier iuiieiulmenl ; and it i 
was determined in the negative — yeas SG, nays 90. The' 
votes of the free States in tiif atlirniative were the same as I 
their ne;,'ative votes on the question hist prcoHlinc, except 
that the alRrmafivc vote of New York was one less than 
the negative vote before. — Home Journal, second session, 
Fifteenth Congress, pp. 263 to 294. 



[\o. 2.] 
I.s THE Senate, March ^, 1820. • 

On motion of Mr. Barbour to amend the Mispoiiri bill 
of the House to strike out from the fourth section of the 
bill the provisions proliibiting slavery or involuntary servi- 
tude in the contemplated State otherwise than in the pun- 
ishment of crimes, as recommended by the committee of 
conference, it was agreed to — yeas 27, nays 15. 

The free States voted as follows : 

Yeis. Nays. Yeas. AVj/s. 

New riampshire,. I 1" New Jersey 2 

Vermont Pennsylvania 2 

Massachusetts 2 Ohio." 2 

Khode Island 1 1 Imliaiia 2 

Connecticut 1 1 Illinois 2 

New York 2 — — 

Total .5 15 

Senate Journal, first session SiHeenth Congress, p. 201. 

HoiTSE OF Represent.vtives, March 2, 1820. 
On the question of concurrence with the Senate on the 
above amendment it passed in the atfirmative — yeaa 90, 
nays 87, the free States voting as follows : 

Yeas. Nays. Yeas. Nays, 

New Hampshire... 6 New Jersey 3 3 

Vermont 6 Pennsylvania 2 21 

Massachusetts.... 4 16 Ohio 6 

Khode Island 1 1 Indiana 1 

Connecticut 2 4 HIinois 1 

New York 2 22 — — 

Total 14 87 

House Journal, p. 276. 

[No. 3.] 
House of Representatives, December 13, 1820. 
The House resumed the consideration of the resolution 
(reported by Mr. Lownoes) declaring the admission of the 
State of Missouri into the Union ; and on the question, 
'• Shall the resolution be engrossed and read a third time .'" 
it was determined in the negative— yeas 79, nay.s 93; the 
free States voting as follows: 

Yeas. Nays. Yeas. Nays. 

N'.'W Hampshire 6 New Jersey.. .. 2 4 

\ ennnnt ' 6 Perinsylvani|. . . 1 22 

Mas.sacliuscfts ...1 18 Ohio 5 

llhode Island 1 Indiana 1 

Connecticut 7 Illinois 1 

New York 1 21 — — 

Total 5 92 



Delaware ;iave one vote in the negative. The votes of 
Maine are in. ■hided with Massachusetts.— Homjc Journal, 
second session Sixteenth Congress, p. 70. 

[No. 4.] 
House of Representatives, Feh-uary 12, 1821. 
The vote being taken on Mr. Mai.lory's amendment to 
the amendment of the select committee to the joint resolu- 
tion of the Senate for the admission of Missouri, it was 
determined in the negative— yeas 61, nays 107. Tlie votes 
of the free States were as fcdiows : 

Yeas. A'/j/«. Yeas. Nays, 

New Hampshire... . 4 2 New Jersey 4 

Vermont 6 Pennsvlv.Kiia 15 6 

Massaebuscttg 14 6 Ohio." 2 3 

Rhode Island 1 Indiana 1 

Connecticut 4 3 Illinois 1 

New York 15 9 _ _ 

Total 61 34 

The vote of Maine is included with that of Massachu- 
setts. — House Journal, second session Sixteenth Con'rress. 
p. 220. ° ' 

[No. 5.] 
House of Representatives, Fehruary 26, 1821. 
The joint resolution for the admission of Missouri upon 
a fundamental condition therein contained, as reported by 
Mr. Clay from the joint committee, being under consider- 
ation on the question, " Shall the resoiulion be engrossed 
and read a third time .'" it was determined in the affirm- 
ative—yeas 86, nays 82. The resolution was then read a 
third time, and on the question " Shall it pass.'" it was de- 
termined in the affirmruive — yeas 87, nays 81. The vote 
of the free States was as I'ollows : 

Yeas. Nays. Yeas. Nays, 

Maine 1 6 New Ymk 6 it 

New Hampshire.... 5 New Jersey 4 l 

Vermont 5 Pennsylvania 4 ]9 

Massaehusetrs 1 11 Ohio g 

Rhode Islanil 1 Indiana 1 

Connecticut 1 6 Illinois 1 

House Journal, second session Sixlcenlk Con"ress on. 
276, 277, 27S. ° " "^ 



[No. 6.] 

Senator Pwti.er refers to the clause in the eighth article 
of the league or confederation of 29ih May, 1643, entitled, 
"Articles of conleileraii^in between the Plantations under 
the Government oi' .Mas.-acliiisetls, New Plymouth, Con- 
necticut, New llavim. in New England, with the Plantations 
in combination with them." 
The iiarticnlar claus(^ referred to is in these words : 

" It is also agreed that, if any .servant run away from his 
master, into any of the confederat(! jurisdirtimis, that in 
such (rase (and upon certificate Ironi one magistrate in the 
jurisdiction out of which said servant fled, or upon other 
due proof) the said servant shall be eithi-r delivered to his 
master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate 
and proof." 



